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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 03/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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.
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 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 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura, US 2019/0286811 in view of Parkinson et al., US 2024/0015150.
Regarding claim 1, Okumura discloses a processing device (PC 1, fig. 1, paragraph 26) comprising:
an authenticator (control board including CPU 11 and authentication information table 82, fig. 1) that applies first authentication information and authenticates to a service using second authentication information (“in an attempt to upload image data to a selected cloud server, the scanning application 41 (more specifically, the user of the scanning application 41) needs to be authenticated in accordance with regulations for the cloud server and acquire authentication information. For instance, an authentication method using OAuth 2.0 may be employed for the selected cloud server. In the authentication method using OAuth 2.0, the PC 1 receives, from the selected cloud server, an access token as the authentication information in response to transmitting account information of the user to the cloud server. When uploading the image data to the selected cloud server, the scanning application 41 transmits the image data with the access token. The access token may be an example of the authentication information”, paragraph 41);
a storage (memory 14, paragraphs 27, 31) that stores a device setting including the first authentication information and the second authentication information (when performing the authentication procedure for accessing the selected cloud server and acquiring a token from the cloud server, the scanning application 41 stores the acquired token into the non-volatile memory 14, in association with information specifying the cloud server such as scanning application 41 has an authentication information table 82 stored in the non-volatile memory 14. As exemplified in FIG. 3, the authentication information table 82 stores a token of each cloud server, paragraphs 45-46 and paragraph 59 for further details);
and one or more controllers (CPU 11, fig. 1) that verify import data imported to a device and reflects the import data on the device setting stored in the storage (import process by the CPU 11 to import the export file generated on another PC with the scanning application 41. For instance, the CPU 11 may perform the import process in response to accepting a user operation with scanning application 41 may once store the export file acquired from the external device into the non-volatile memory 14 and then read and import the stored export file, paragraphs 87-89),
maintain the second authentication information when determining that third authentication information and the first authentication information are the same authentication information (acquires a new token, different from an old token, in response to transmitting a further request for authentication to a specific cloud server in the token acquiring process, if the workflow table stores one or more workflows each including the specific cloud server as the cloud information and the old token as the token, the corresponding information registered as the token may be updated. Thus, as the same token is used to access the same cloud server in a plurality of workflows, paragraph 101, thereby, scanning application 41 may use a same token in a plurality of workflows using a same cloud server so that the user is re-authenticated to access the cloud server in an attempt to execute a workflow, the authentication information table 82 is updated. Therefore, the user may not need to be re-authenticated in each attempt to execute one of workflows using the same cloud server, paragraph 93),
and reflect the third authentication information instead of the first authentication information on the device setting and delete the second authentication information from the storage when determining that the third authentication information and the first authentication information are not the same authentication information (after reading out a token stored in the workflow table or the authentication information table, the scanning application 41 may check whether the token is valid. For instance, the CPU 11 may inquire of a corresponding cloud server whether the token is valid. In another instance, when storing a token in the workflow table or the authentication information table, the CPU 11 may store validity information for the token such as an expiration date and a maximum number of valid uses of the token as well. In this case, the CPU 11 may read out the token from the workflow table or the authentication information table and determine whether the token is valid based on the validity information, paragraph 109, thus in this case, in an attempt to import the export file of a workflow including a token, the scanning application 41 may deletes the token from the workflow read out of the export file and store the workflow, paragraph 104, and therefore, new token is used/reflected to access the same cloud server in a plurality of workflows in response to determining that old token for authentication to a specific cloud server in the token acquiring process is not same or not valid, paragraph 101).
Okumura fails to explicitly disclose wherein one or more controllers compare third authentication information with the first authentication information when determining that import data includes the third authentication information as a result of verification of the import data.
However, Parkinson teaches wherein one or more controllers (verification computing device) compare third authentication information (first token) with the first authentication information (second token) when determining that import data (data sent to the verification device, wherein a correspondence between the second token and the first token constitutes validation of the first token) includes the third authentication information as a result of verification of the import data (receiving a response at the first device indicating whether the verification system validated the first token; and responsive to the response received at the first device indicating that the verification system validated the first token, comparing the second token to the first token, claims 1 and 6).
Okumura and Parkinson are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with authentication tokens among image processing devices.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okumura to incorporate the teachings of Parkinson to provide comparison techniques between the authentication information for the benefit of providing efficient and robust authentication environment eliminating occurrences of bad actors obtaining user’s information as taught by Parkinson at paragraphs 3, 5.
Regarding claim 7, Combination of Okumura with Parkinson and Asahara further teaches wherein the import data includes first device setting information (Asahara, type of the setting value included in the import data or the export data includes a setting value about printing such as a sheet size and setting values about a facsimile (FAX) function and communication with other apparatuses, paragraph 24), and the one or more controllers replace the device setting with a first device setting based on the first device setting information (Asahara, setting in import data describe which settings/functions to use/replace depending upon communication with other apparatuses, paragraph 24), and regarding the third authentication information, maintain the second authentication information when determining that the third authentication information and the first authentication information are the same authentication information (Okumura, acquires a new token, different from an old token, in response to transmitting a further request for authentication to a specific cloud server in the token acquiring process, if the workflow table stores one or more workflows each including the specific cloud server as the cloud information and the old token as the token, the corresponding information registered as the token may be updated. Thus, as the same token is used to access the same cloud server in a plurality of workflows, paragraph 101, thereby, scanning application 41 may use a same token in a plurality of workflows using a same cloud server so that the user is re-authenticated to access the cloud server in an attempt to execute a workflow, the authentication information table 82 is updated. Therefore, the user may not need to be re-authenticated in each attempt to execute one of workflows using the same cloud server, paragraph 93), and reflect the third authentication information instead of the first authentication information on the device setting and deletes the second authentication information from the storage when determining that the third authentication information and the first authentication information are not the same authentication information (Okumura, after reading out a token stored in the workflow table or the authentication information table, the scanning application 41 may check whether the token is valid. For instance, the CPU 11 may inquire of a corresponding cloud server whether the token is valid. In another instance, when storing a token in the workflow table or the authentication information table, the CPU 11 may store validity information for the token such as an expiration date and a maximum number of valid uses of the token as well. In this case, the CPU 11 may read out the token from the workflow table or the authentication information table and determine whether the token is valid based on the validity information, paragraph 109, thus in this case, in an attempt to import the export file of a workflow including a token, the scanning application 41 may deletes the token from the workflow read out of the export file and store the workflow, paragraph 104, and therefore, new token is used/reflected to access the same cloud server in a plurality of workflows in response to determining that old token for authentication to a specific cloud server in the token acquiring process is not same or not valid, paragraph 101).
Okumura and Parkinson are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with authentication tokens among image processing devices.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okumura to incorporate the teachings of Parkinson to provide comparison techniques between the authentication information for the benefit of providing efficient and robust authentication environment eliminating occurrences of bad actors obtaining user’s information as taught by Parkinson at paragraphs 3, 5.
Regarding claim 8, Okumura discloses an image processing device (PC 1, fig. 1, paragraph 26) comprising: a processing device including an authenticator (control board including CPU 11 and authentication information table 82, fig. 1), and an image processor (CPU 11 with scanning application 41 utilizing network communication 16, fig. 1) that performs transmission processing of an image based on an authentication result in the service (paragraphs 41, 57-60, 75). Rest of the claim recites similar features as claim 1 and thus is rejected on the same rationale as presented for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, is a method version of claim 1 reciting similar features as claim 1 and thus is rejected on the same rationale as presented for claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura, US 2019/0286811 in view of Parkinson et al., US 2024/0015150 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Asahara, US 2014/0022591.
Regarding claim 2, Okumura discloses import button (paragraph 81) but combination of Okumura with Parkinson fails to explicitly teach wherein import data is data in which a setting value of the device setting is represented in association with a tag, and one or more controllers verify the import data based on the tag detected.
However, Asahara teaches wherein import data is data in which a setting value of the device setting is represented in association with a tag, and one or more controllers verify the import data based on the tag detected (“fig. 5 illustrates an example of the import data or the export data. In this example, an identifier represented in the form of an extensible markup language (XML) file for identifying a setting value for the image forming apparatus 101 is the name of a tag. An entity of the setting value is described in a value. The type of the setting value included in the import data or the export data includes a setting value about printing such as a sheet size and setting values about a facsimile (FAX) function and communication with other apparatuses”, paragraph 24).
Okumura and Parkinson are combinable with Asahara because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with importing data among image processing devices.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okumura and Parkinson to incorporate the teachings of Asahara to provide a setting value of the device setting is represented in association with a tag such that user can know that an import result log will not be output before performing the import when a setting value is imported to the image forming apparatus as taught by Asahara at paragraph 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: cited prior arts fail to explicitly teach all the limitations of claim 3 such as “The processing device according to claim 2, wherein when the tag represents a setting value related to an authentication method of performing authentication to the service using the second authentication information, the one or more controllers determine that the import data includes the third authentication information”.
Claims 4-6 are further dependent upon claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wen, US 2020/0218819
Sato, US 2016/0231971
Ittogi, US 2024/0205029
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAWANDEEP DHINGRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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.
/PAWAN DHINGRA/Examiner, Art Unit 2683
/ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2683