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 1-10 are pending.
Claim Objections
Previous claim objection(s) have been withdrawn in view of amendments made by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments as filed on 06/05/2026 has been considered and entered, however, applicant’s arguments as filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that cited references fail to teach the newly amended features of claim 1 such as “download from the external service, data identified by identification information returned by the external service in response to the uploading of the data”.
In reply, examiner disagrees and asserts that above argued limitations are broad and Nakayama successfully reads on those limitations to teach that to download from the external service, data identified by identification information returned by the external service in response to the uploading of the data (in response to uploading of scanned data to the FTP server 5, it is apparent to one with ordinary skill that some indication such as access granted, etc. (i.e., data identification information) must be returned from the FTP server to the MFP such that the MFP can confidently determine that the upload to the FTP server has been successful, and based on said identification information received, only then a record is registered in the management table as a process target record with file name identifying the uploaded data, which is then used to download the uploaded scanned image data based on the filename designated by the process target record from the FTP server, paragraphs 43, 50, 56).
Applicant’s rest of the arguments are rendered moot as they are based on the same assertions.
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, 3-5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama, US 2010/0185750 in view of Kim, US 2004/0158707 further in view of Chien, US 2018/0314507 further in view of Crowder, Jr. et al, US 2011/0014964.
Regarding claim 1, Nakayama discloses an information processing apparatus (MFP 3, fig. 1) cooperating with an external service (FTP server 5, fig. 1), comprising:
at least one memory configured to store at least one program (a ROM 13 storing programs to be executed by the CPU 11, a RAM 15 used as a work memory for execution of the programs by the CPU 11, paragraph 26);
and at least one processor (CPU 11, fig. 1, paragraph 26), wherein the at least one program causes the at least one processor (through execution of the program, the control unit 10 totally controls the components of the MFP 3 to realize the network printer function, paragraph 26) to upload data to the external service (network interface 29 of MFP 3 transmits the scanned image data generated by the reading unit 23 by reading the document, to the FTP server 5 which is a server device on the network so that the scanned image data is uploaded to the FTP server 5, paragraph 29);
determine whether the data upload is successful (when the upload has succeeded (S180: YES), the control unit 10 newly registers a record corresponding to the uploaded scanned image data in a management table (step S190), paragraph 43);
download from the external service, data identified by identification information returned by the external service in response to the uploading of the data (in response to uploading of scanned data to the FTP server 5, it is apparent to one with ordinary skill that some indication such as access granted, etc. (i.e., data identification information) must be returned from the FTP server to the MFP such that the MFP can confidently determine that the upload to the FTP server has been successful, and based on said identification information received, only then a record is registered in the management table as a process target record with file name identifying the uploaded data, which is then used to download the uploaded scanned image data based on the filename designated by the process target record from the FTP server, paragraphs 43, 50, 56);
determine whether the data download is successful (control unit 10 judges that the download has succeeded (S260: YES), the control unit 10 writes the downloaded scanned image data in a download data area of the NVRAM 17 (step S270), paragraph 57);
and display determined state of the external service as a service state (when the scanned image data cannot be successfully uploaded to the upload target due to a fact that the designated FTP server 5 does not exist, the control unit 10 displays an error screen on the display unit 25, paragraph 44). (Also note, when the upload has failed, the control unit 10 transmits a webpage forming an error screen indicating failure of re-upload, to the access source device, paragraph 88).
Nakayama fails to explicitly disclose compare uploaded data with downloaded data to determine a state of external service, wherein it is determined that the state of the external service is a normal state if it is determined that both of the data upload and the data download are successful and that the uploaded data and the downloaded data are identical, and wherein it is determined that the state of the external service is abnormal state if it is determined that the data upload is not successful or that the data download is not successful or that the uploaded data and the downloaded data are not identical; and store determined state of the external service as a service state.
However, Kim teaches compare uploaded data with downloaded data to determine a state of external service, wherein it is determined that the state of the external service is a normal state if it is determined that the uploaded data and the downloaded data are identical, and wherein it is determined that the state of the external service is abnormal state if it is determined that the data upload is not successful OR that the data download is not successful OR that the uploaded data and the downloaded data are not identical (CPU 210 of the computer 200 then determines (i.e., compares) whether the download-requested content is identical to the content previously uploaded from the mobile terminal 100, based on the model information M and the serial number N of the mobile terminal 100, included in the content download request signal. If it is determined that the download-requested content is identical to the content uploaded from the mobile terminal 100, the CPU 210 transmits the encrypted content 284 stored in the auxiliary memory device 280 to the mobile terminal 100 via the interface 240 only when they are identical to each other clearly indicating that state of the external service is a normal state and otherwise, if the download-requested content is not identical to the content uploaded from the mobile terminal 100, the CPU 210 does not provide the encrypted content 284 stored in the auxiliary memory device 280 to the mobile terminal 100 clearly indicating that state of the external service is abnormal state, paragraphs 42-43).
Nakayama and Kim are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with managing upload/download of data.
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 Nakayama to incorporate the teachings of Kim for comparing upload/download data for the benefit of providing a mobile terminal capable of restricting a right to use paid content when downloading and uploading the paid content downloaded with a pay content service as taught by Kim at paragraph 8.
Nakayama with Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein it is determined that the state of external service is a normal state if it is determined that data upload is successful, and store determined state of the external service as a service state.
However, Chien teaches wherein it is determined that the state of external service is a normal state if it is determined that data upload is successful, and store determined state of external service as a service state (after upload the file to the system management software 300, MC 114 determines if the upload is complete. Where the completion stage determines the status is successful and normal, thereafter, upload is logged/stored as success indicating normal state of external system management device, paragraphs 53-54).
Nakayama and Kim are combinable with Chien because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with managing successful upload of data.
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 Nakayama with Kim to incorporate the teachings of Chien for the benefit of providing autonomously provisioning custom settings for a server device regarding upload of data to reduce costs and maintenance as taught by Chien at paragraphs 1, 7, 53.
Nakayama with Kim and Chien fails to explicitly teach wherein it is determined that state of external service is a normal state if it is determined that data download is successful.
However, Crowder, Jr. teaches wherein it is determined that state of external service is a normal state if it is determined that data download is successful (upon successful completion of the file transfer (data download), the GMM closes the temporary download file, and sends a download complete message to the CCM in the normal status update message indicating normal state of external device, paragraph 246).
Nakayama, Kim and Chien are combinable with Crowder, Jr. because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with managing successful download of data.
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 Nakayama with Kim and Chien to incorporate the teachings of Crowder, Jr. for the benefit of efficiently monitoring successful download of data in demanding image processing systems as taught by Crowder, Jr. at paragraphs 6, 246.
Regarding claim 3, Combination of Nakayama with Kim further teaches wherein in a case where it is stored that the service state is the normal state, received data is uploaded to the external service in response to a request from a transmission source of the received data (Kim, mobile terminal 100 decrypts the content provided in response to a download request for the uploaded content using the encryption key k used for encryption during content uploading and in addition, as the content download request signal includes the model information M and the serial number N of the mobile terminal 100, the computer 200 determines whether the download-requested content is identical to the content previously uploaded by the mobile terminal 100, and provides the corresponding content to the mobile terminal 100 only when they are identical to each other (in a case where normal state is established, only then data is uploaded based on request from mobile terminal), paragraph 43).
Nakayama and Kim are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with managing upload/download of data.
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 Nakayama to incorporate the teachings of Kim for comparing upload/download data for the benefit of providing a mobile terminal capable of restricting a right to use paid content when downloading and uploading the paid content downloaded with a pay content service as taught by Kim at paragraph 8.
Regarding claim 4, Combination of Nakayama with Kim further teaches wherein in a case where it is stored that the service state is the abnormal state, received data requested from a transmission source is held (Kim, if the download-requested content is not identical to the content uploaded from the mobile terminal 100, the CPU 210 does not provide the encrypted content 284 stored in the auxiliary memory device 280 to the mobile terminal 100 (i.e., requested data is held) clearly indicating that state of the external service is abnormal state, paragraph 42), and wherein the held data is uploaded to the external service if the service state becomes normal state (Kim, otherwise, if download-requested content is identical to the content previously uploaded by the mobile terminal 100, and provides the corresponding content to the mobile terminal 100 only when they are identical to each other (in a case where normal state is established, only then data is uploaded based on request from mobile terminal), paragraph 43.
Nakayama and Kim are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with managing upload/download of data.
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 Nakayama to incorporate the teachings of Kim for comparing upload/download data for the benefit of providing a mobile terminal capable of restricting a right to use paid content when downloading and uploading the paid content downloaded with a pay content service as taught by Kim at paragraph 8.
Regarding claim 5, Combination of Nakayama with Kim further teaches wherein the stored service state of the external service is transmitted to a transmission source in response to a request from the transmission source of received data (Kim, mobile terminal 100 decrypts the content provided in response to a download request for the uploaded content using the encryption key k used for encryption during content uploading and in addition, as the content download request signal includes the model information M and the serial number N of the mobile terminal 100, the computer 200 determines whether the download-requested content is identical to the content previously uploaded by the mobile terminal 100, and provides the corresponding content to the mobile terminal 100 only when they are identical to each other (in a case where normal state is established, only then data is uploaded based on request from mobile terminal), paragraph 43).
Nakayama and Kim are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with managing upload/download of data.
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 Nakayama to incorporate the teachings of Kim for comparing upload/download data for the benefit of providing a mobile terminal capable of restricting a right to use paid content when downloading and uploading the paid content downloaded with a pay content service as taught by Kim at paragraph 8.
Regarding claim 8, Nakayama further discloses wherein the data is image data (a function of uploading scanned image data from the MFP 3 to the FTP server 5 is achieved by executing a read operation reception, paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 9, which recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of claim 1, see rationale as applied above. Note that non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is taught by Nakayama in paragraphs 10, 26.
Regarding claim 10, is a method version of claim 1 reciting similar features and thus is rejected on the same rationale.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama, US 2010/0185750 in view of Kim, US 2004/0158707 further in view of Chien, US 2018/0314507 further in view of Crowder, Jr. et al, US 2011/0014964 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Monsonego et al., US 2020/0257797.
Regarding claim 2, Nakayama further discloses wherein the data upload are performed within predetermined interval (extension reception time indicating a time period within which the control unit 10 accepts a request for re-upload of the scanned image data from the time when the scanned image data is deleted from the FTP server 5 due to expiration of the storage time is described, paragraph 46).
Combination of Nakayama with Kim, Chien and Crowder, JR. fails to explicitly teach wherein data upload, data download, and comparison of the uploaded data with the downloaded data are repeated every predetermined interval.
However, Monsonego teaches wherein data upload, data download, and comparison of the uploaded data with the downloaded data are repeated every predetermined interval (steps involving actions such as data comparing, determining, distinguishing with intervening actions such as uploading and downloading are repeated at a predetermined interval, paragraph 107).
Nakayama, Kim, Chien and Crowder, Jr. are combinable with Monsonego because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with managing upload/download of data.
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 Nakayama with Kim, Chien and Crowder, Jr. to incorporate the teachings of Monsonego for the benefit of efficiently automating resource management to reduce cost and enhancing technical capabilities as taught by Monsonego at paragraph 5.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama, US 2010/0185750 in view of Kim, US 2004/0158707 further in view of Chien, US 2018/0314507 further in view of Crowder, Jr. et al, US 2011/0014964 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Fujita, US 2011/0117844.
Regarding claim 6, Combination of Nakayama with Kim, Chien and Crowder, JR. fails to explicitly teach wherein a screen for selecting any of a plurality of external services is provided to a transmission source in response to a request from the transmission source of received data, and service states of the plurality of external services are displayed on the screen.
However, Fujita teaches wherein a screen for selecting any of a plurality of external services is provided to a transmission source in response to a request from the transmission source of received data, and service states of the plurality of external services are displayed on the screen (user operates the digital camera 101 to select an external apparatus to which the image data are to be uploaded. At this time, the user operates the operation unit 203 while browsing a GUI which is displayed on, for example, the display unit 205, as shown in FIG. 6B, and prompts the user to select an external apparatus as a transmission destination based on the external apparatus list acquired in step S505, and selects the external apparatus as the transmission destination (target designation). Upon completion of selection of the external apparatus as the transmission destination, the digital camera 101 displays again, on the display unit 205, the GUI which prompts the user to set the service state that allows to establish a close proximity wireless communication connection with the external apparatus that is, to bring the camera closer to the selected printer, paragraphs 44, 52).
Nakayama, Kim, Chien and Crowder, Jr. are combinable with Fujita because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with external devices while managing upload/download of data.
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 Nakayama with Kim, Chien and Crowder, Jr. to incorporate the teachings of Fujita for the benefit of efficiently proving an image processing apparatus which allows to easily select a communication partner apparatus to communicate with when a communication is to be made with a plurality of external apparatuses connected to said apparatus as taught by Fujita at paragraph 7.
Regarding claim 7, Combination of Nakayama with Kim, Chien and Crowder, JR. and Fujita further teaches wherein in a case where an external service whose service state is not normal is selected on a screen for selecting the external service (Fujita, when the user selects the external apparatus such as the DTV 107 or printer 108, which does not include any upload process in the executable application information, paragraph 62), a screen for accepting an instruction for uploading data to the external service after the service state becomes normal is provided to the transmission source (Fujita, digital camera 101 may display, on the display unit 205, a GUI that gives a warning indicating that it is impossible to execute the upload process, the digital camera 101 prompts the user to select the process to be applied to the selected image data transmitted via the data communication by an apparatus as a transmission destination. This modification will explain a communication process executed when data recorded in the digital camera 101 is transmitted to the printer 108, and the printer 108 is controlled to print the data. After the user selects the desired process, the digital camera 101 displays, on the display unit 205, a GUI which prompts the user to set a state that allows to establish a close proximity wireless communication connection with an external apparatus which makes a close proximity wireless communication (to bring the digital camera 101 close to that apparatus), paragraphs 62, 100).
Nakayama, Kim, Chien and Crowder, Jr. are combinable with Fujita because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with external devices while managing upload/download of data.
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 Nakayama with Kim, Chien and Crowder, Jr. to incorporate the teachings of Fujita for the benefit of efficiently proving an image processing apparatus which allows to easily select a communication partner apparatus to communicate with when a communication is to be made with a plurality of external apparatuses connected to said apparatus as taught by Fujita at paragraph 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tamagawa, US 2024/0007575
Desserrey et al., US 2021/0392096
Sato, US 2009/0043731
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/BENNY Q TIEU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights