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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 3/7/24 is acknowledged, the references therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Printing information processing apparatus for requiring a user operation at a printer when information leakage risk is high”.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: words “print according” in lines 7, 8 and 10 should be “printing according”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “acquisition unit … determination unit … execution unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Inspection of the specification reveals a network card (paragraph 30 of the publication) corresponds to the acquisition unit; and a CPU (paragraph 28) corresponds to the determination and execution units.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
1) Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2022/0078307 by Muto, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2015/0121542 by Kinoshita et al.
2) Regarding claim 1, Muto teaches an information processing (figure 1, item 100; paragraph 21 discloses item 100 can be implemented as one or more apparatuses) apparatus comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire a print instruction designated to be executed by a first method that does not need a user operation on a print apparatus to start print (figure 8; paragraphs 117 and 118; job can be received without authentication information and without high confidentiality and sent straight to printer for immediate print [as described in paragraph 52]); a determination unit configured to, in a case where the acquisition unit acquires the print instruction designated to be executed by the first method, determine, whether an information leakage risk caused by execution of print according to the print instruction is higher than a threshold (figure 8, item S820; paragraph 123; guest job can be determined to have confidentiality above a threshold [i.e. it contains specific confidential characters]); and an execution unit configured to execute the print instruction by the first method in a case where it is determined that the information leakage risk is lower than the threshold (figure 8, item S715; low confidentiality is transmitted straight to printer), and execute the print instruction by a second method that needs the user operation on the print apparatus to start print in a case where it is determined that the information leakage risk is higher than the threshold (figure 8, items S740, S745 and S750; paragraphs 51 and 52; registered user information replaces guest information thereby requiring password of the particular user to be entered at the printer).
Muto does not specifically teach determining, based on at least one of a date/time to execute print according to the print instruction and a position of the print apparatus that executes print according to the print instruction, whether an information leakage risk caused by execution of print.
Kinoshita teaches determining, based on at least one of a date/time to execute print according to the print instruction and a position of the print apparatus that executes print according to the print instruction, whether an information leakage risk caused by execution of print (paragraph 50; installation position of an MFP can be utilized to determine a security level).
Muto and Kinoshita are combinable because they are both from the secure network printing field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Muto with Kinoshita to add determination of security level according to location. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine whether or not authentication is required when outputting a document (paragraph 25). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Muto with Kinoshita to obtain the invention of claim 1.
3) Regarding claim 2, Muto teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the acquisition unit acquires a second print instruction designated to be executed by the second method, the execution unit executes the second print instruction by the second method regardless of whether an information leakage risk caused by execution of print according to the second print instruction is higher than the threshold. (paragraph 44 and 52; registered user’s job can require authentication by password and the confidentiality level does not matter).
4) Regarding claim 4, Muto teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein executing the print instruction by the second method includes issuing a code to be input to the print apparatus that executes print according to the print instruction (paragraphs 51 and 52; password executes printing).
5) Regarding claim 7, Kinoshita (as combined with Muto in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where neither a user nor an administrator of the information processing apparatus sets to inhibit the first method based on a determination that the information leakage risk is higher than the threshold, and in a case where the acquisition unit acquires the print instruction designated to be executed by the first method, the execution unit executes the print instruction by the first method (paragraph 25; when security print setting is off, job with high confidentiality can be printed as is).
6) Regarding claim 8, Muto teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus is located away from the print apparatus that executes print according to the print instruction (figure 1, item 100; paragraph 21 discloses item 100 can be implemented as one or more apparatuses).
7) Regarding claim 9, Muto teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus is incorporated in the print apparatus that executes print according to the print instruction (figure 1, item 100; paragraph 21 discloses item 100 can be implemented as one or more apparatuses).
8) Claims 10 and 11 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
9) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2022/0078307 by Muto, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2015/0121542 by Kinoshita et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent 10,942,689 by Boo et al.
Muto teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines whether the information leakage risk is higher than the threshold further based on contents of a print target designated by the print instruction (paragraph 123; confidentiality level can be determined based upon job contents).
Muto does not specifically teach determining whether the information leakage risk based on the number of pages of the print target designated by the print instruction.
Boo teaches determining whether the information leakage risk based on the number of pages of the print target designated by the print instruction (figure 12; column 12, lines 12-25; higher security can be implemented for a higher number of pages).
Muto and Boo are combinable because they are both from the secure network printing field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Muto with Boo to add determination of security level according to page amount. The motivation for doing so would have been for “improved security” (column 12, line 50). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Muto with Kinoshita and Boo to obtain the invention of claim 3.
10) Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2022/0078307 by Muto, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2015/0121542 by Kinoshita et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2019/0095152 by Kaneko.
11) Regarding claim 5, Muto (as combined with Kinoshita in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where an the information processing apparatus sets to inhibit the first method based on a determination that the information leakage risk is higher than the threshold (Kinoshita paragraph 25; security print setting can be turned “ON” or “OFF”), in a case where the acquisition unit acquires the print instruction designated to be executed by the first method, and in a case where the determination unit determines that the information leakage risk is higher than the threshold, the execution unit executes the print instruction by the second method (figure 8, items S740, S745 and S750; paragraphs 51 and 52; registered user information replaces guest information thereby requiring password of the particular user to be entered at the printer).
Muto does not specifically teach an administrator of the information processing apparatus sets to inhibit the first method based on a determination that the information leakage risk is higher than the threshold.
Kaneko teaches an administrator of the information processing apparatus sets to inhibit the first method based on a determination that the information leakage risk is higher than the threshold (paragraph 2; forcible hold printing can be turned on by admin).
Muto and Kaneko are combinable because they are both from the secure network printing field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Muto with Kaneko to add admin settings. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the leaving of printed matter alone (paragraph 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Muto with Kinoshita and Kaneko to obtain the invention of claim 5.
12) Claim 6 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683