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, see page 10, filed 4/16/26, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 4/16/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. patent application publication 2018/0004463 by Masumoto.
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 8-11 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 2018/0004463 by Masumoto.
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: a memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (paragraph 100; figure 5; CPU and various memories disclosed) 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 printing (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]); in a case where the print instruction designated to be executed by the first method is acquired, determine, whether an information leakage risk caused by execution of printing 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 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 printing 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 a date/time to execute printing according to the print instruction, whether an information leakage risk is caused by execution of printing.
Masumoto teaches determining, based on a date/time to execute printing according to the print instruction, whether an information leakage risk is caused by execution of printing (paragraphs 153-157; security risk factors are determined, at least in part, based upon scheduled print time of a job).
Muto and Masumoto 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 Masumoto to add determination of security level according to print time. The motivation for doing so would have been “to enhance convenience for the output-permitted user while ensuring the security of the output product” (abstract). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Muto with Masumoto to obtain the invention of claim 1.
3) Regarding claim 2, Muto teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where a second print instruction designated to be executed by the second method is acquired, execute the second print instruction by the second method regardless of whether an information leakage risk caused by execution of printing 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 printing instruction (paragraphs 51 and 52; password executes printing).
5) 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 printing instruction (figure 1, item 100; paragraph 21 discloses item 100 can be implemented as one or more apparatuses).
6) 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 printing instruction (figure 1, item 100; paragraph 21 discloses item 100 can be implemented as one or more apparatuses).
7) Claims 10 and 11 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
8) 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 2018/0004463 by Masumoto, 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 at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine 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.
9) 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 2018/0004463 by Masumoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2015/0121542 by Kinoshita et al., and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2019/0095152 by Kaneko.
10) Regarding claim 5, Muto teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where the print instruction designated to be executed by the first method is acquired, and in a case where it is determined that the information leakage risk is higher than the threshold, execute 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 a case where 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 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.
Kinoshita teaches a case where 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 25; security print setting can be turned “ON” or “OFF”).
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 selection of security settings. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine whether or not authentication is required when outputting a document (paragraph 25).
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 and Masumoto with Kinoshita and Kaneko to obtain the invention of claim 5.
11) Claim 6 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 5 above.
12) Claim 7 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 2018/0004463 by Masumoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2015/0121542 by Kinoshita et al.
Regarding claim 7, Kinoshita (as combined with Muto in the rejection of claim 5 above) teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, 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 print instruction designated to be executed by the first method is acquired, execute the print instruction by the first method (paragraph 25; when security print setting is off, job with high confidentiality can be printed as is).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights