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
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the claim as now amended.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-12, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Towata (US 20170171431 A1) in view of Sohma (US 20210243329 A1) and Shirai (US 20180067701 A1).
Referring to claims 1-2, 8-12, 16-17, and 20:
Towata discloses a system comprising a multifunction printer and an authentication server configure to perform a method comprising:
the multifunction printer having a processor (par. 24, 26: MFP 111) configured to perform the method steps of:
receiving a request to execute one or more of a print job and a scan job (par. 24, 26, 30: implied MFP 111 receives requests to execute applications 311 for scanning or printing at the MFP or from client computer 113);
forwarding a request to an authentication server for authorization to execute one or more of the print job and the scan job received by the multifunction printer (par. 31: image forming apparatus 111 . . . requests the login to the authentication server 120; par. 49: In S706, the image forming apparatus 111 transmits a login request to the authentication server 120);
receiving a response from the authentication server for the authorization to execute the one or more of the print job and the scan job received by the multifunction printer (par. 31: Thereby, the function of the image forming apparatus 111 is provided to the user; par. 49: In S707, the authentication server 120 transmits the login response to the image forming apparatus 111);
executing the one or more of the print job and the scan job when the response from the identity server authorizes the execution of the one or more of the print job and the scan job (par, 51: In S710, the user uses a desired function of the image forming apparatus 111);
sending a user identity associated with the request to execute the one or more of the print job and the scan job to the authentication server (par. 49: In S706, the user ID is contained is the login request); and
receiving the response from the authentication server for the authorization to execute the one or more of the print job and the scan job received based on the user identity with the request to execute the one or more of the print job and the scan job (par. 49: In S707, the authentication server 120 transmits the login response to the image forming apparatus 111); and
the authentication server having a processor (par. 25-26: server 120) configure to perform the method steps of:
receiving a request for authorization to execute one or more of a print job and a scan job from the multifunction printer (par. 31, 49, S706 as indicated above);
sending a response to the request for authorization to execute the one or more of the print job and the scan job to the multifunction printer with approval or denial of the request for authorization to execute the one or more of the print job or the scan job based on the determination of the retrieved one or more permissions for the one or more of the print job and the scan job (par. 49: In S707 as indicated above);
receiving a user identifier associated with the request for authorization to execute the one or more of the print job and the scan job from the multifunction printer (par. 49: In S706 as indicated above); and
determining if the multifunction printer is authorized to execute the one or more of the print job and the scan job based on the received user identifier (par. 49: In S707 as indicated above).
Towata does not disclose the authentication server as a decentralized identity server, nor such a server retrieving from a distributed ledger, which is a blockchain, one or more permissions for the one or more of the print job and the scan job, determining if the multifunction printer is authorized to execute the one or more of the print job and the scan job based on the retrieved one or more permissions for the one or more of the print job and the scan job from the distributed ledger, receiving the one or more permissions for the one or more of the print job and the scan job, recording the one or more permissions for the one or more of the print job and the scan job on the distributed ledger, or sending a notification to one or more users associated with the request for authorization received from the multifunction printer to execute the one or more of the print job and the scan job.
However, Sohma discloses a multifunction printer or MFP (image forming apparatus 101) and a decentralized identity server (blockchain apparatus 111) which retrieves from a distributed ledger (blockchain), permissions or authority for a requesting user to perform the functions of printing a document (print job) or scanning a document (scan job) on the MFP (par. 26, 45-55). The decentralized identity server (blockchain apparatus 111) records permissions for the print job and the scan job on the distributed ledger (par. 97, 136: reads on registering information on a printing or scanning process in the blockchain). The decentralized identity server (blockchain apparatus 111) notifies users associated with the request for authorization received from the MFP to execute the print job and the scan job (par. 76-84, reads on the registration screens displayed to the user for document scanning or printing).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Towata in view of Sohma to have used a decentralized identity server and distributed ledger (blockchain) as recited above in order to provide a data management method highly resistant to falsification (par. 60-61).
The combination of Towata and Sohma do not disclose the decentralized identity server including one or more permissions for the one or more of the print job and the scan job set by an owner of the one or more of the print job and the scan job.
However, Shirai disclose authentication server inquiry unit 413 making a request for issuing an authorization token to the authentication server 103. The authentication server inquiry unit 413 sends, to the authentication server 103, a user certificate certified by the authentication server 103 registered in advance. When the authentication server 103 verifies the certificate and can confirm validation thereof, the authentication server 103 issues an authorization token (permission), and sends the authorization token to the authentication server inquiry unit 413. The authentication server inquiry unit 413 sends the authorization token to the print job acquisition unit 412 whereby the print job acquisition unit 412 acquires print job files on the storage server 102 to execute printing of the print job. See par. 34-37 and 54-55. This teaches the concept of obtaining permission for a user to execute a data processing job, which must inherently be set by an owner or authority.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Towata and Sohma in view of Shirai for the decentralized identity server to include one or more permissions for the one or more of the print job and the scan job set by an owner of the one or more of the print job and the scan job in order provide secure access control to print jobs or scan jobs only to users verified to have permission set by an owner or those authorized to set such permission.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Towata and Sohma in view of Shirai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smits (US 20150227790 A1) and Moua (US 10893156 B1).
Referring to claims 6-7:
Towata discloses the multifunction printer authenticating a user of the multifunction printer associated with the one or more of the print job and the scan job based on a biometric identifier of the user, and the biometric identifier is from a biometric authenticator device associated the multifunction printer, the biometric authenticator device including a sensor (camera 131), the biometric identifier of the user being a physiological characteristic of the user, and the physiological characteristic is face recognition (abstract, par. 27, 46-47).
Towata further discloses the client device (client computer 113) can be a mobile device, such as a smart phone (par. 24), but does not disclose a configuration with a biometric authenticator device being associated a client device, nor the multifunction printer communication with the client device of the user via a wireless communication protocol, the wireless protocol being a near-field communication (NFC) or a Bluetooth technology standard.
However, a biometric authenticator device being associated a client device (e.g., camera on a smart phone) and communication between a multifunction printer and such a client device via wireless communication protocols such as near-field communication (NFC) or a Bluetooth technology standard are well known. Smits discloses authenticating a user of a device using a biometric camera 126 including an imaging sensor on mobile device 100 such as a smartphone (abstract, par. 29-33, 54-55). Moua discloses a scan file and user identification associated therewith of the scanning operation, the system including a mobile phone 600 and MFP 700 that can communicate via wireless communication protocols such as near field communication protocol (NFC) or Bluetooth (col. 14, lines 24-30 and col. 17, lines 32-55).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Towata, Sohma, and Shirai in view of Smits and Moua to include a biometric authenticator device being associated a client device (e.g., camera on a smart phone) and communication between the multifunction printer and the client device via wireless communication protocols as indicated above in order to gain the advantage of using a mobile smartphone or other mobile device that reduces power consumption and increases biometric imaging specificity for authenticating a user and provides safe and convenient user operation communicating with the multifunction printer using a wireless communication protocol that provides continuous data transfer over a secure medium-range to short-range wireless connection.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Towata and Sohma in view of Shirai as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Moua (US 10893156 B1).
Referring to claim 13:
Towata does not discloses the decentralized identity server receiving a decentralized identity code from the multifunction printer, the decentralized identity code being on contents of a scanned document, determining if the multifunction printer is authorized to execute the scan job based on the decentralized identity code and permissions associated with the decentralized identity code, and sending the response to the request for authorization to execute the scan job to the multifunction printer with approval or denial of the request for authorization to execute the scan job.
However, Moua discloses systems and methods for scan authorization including a memory storing a keyword (a code), a permission in a profile, and an action to be performed responsive to a scanning operation of a document including the keyword. A scan file and a user identification associated therewith of the scanning operation are obtained, a recognition operation is performed on an image in the scan file, and a check for the keyword in a recognized content obtained from the image is performed. Responsive to recognizing the keyword in the recognized content, a check for the permission having the user identification is performed and the action for the scanning operation is performed responsive to an outcome of the checking for the permission (see abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Towata, Sohma, and Shirai in view of Moua to include the feature of the decentralized identity server receiving a decentralized identity code from the multifunction printer and further responding as indicated above in order to ensure authorization to scan a particular document, in contrast to authorization to use a scanner.
Claims 3-5, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Towata and Sohma in view of Shirai as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Elhassen et al (US 20180309898 A1) and well-known prior art (MPEP2144.03).
Referring to claims 3-5, 14, and 18-19:
The combination of Towata, Sohma, and Shirai do not disclose the multifunction printer printing the print job with a decentralized identity code on contents of the printed print job, wherein the decentralized identity code is one or more of a uniform resource locator, a quick response code, and a user identifier, sending the decentralized identity code from the printed print job to the decentralized identity server for authorization to execute the scanning of the printed print job, receiving the response from the decentralized identity server for the authorization to execute the scan job based on the decentralized identify code, reading the decentralized identity code on the contents of the printed print job, and sending the read decentralized identity code on the contents of the printed print job to the decentralized identity server. The combination of Towata, Sohma, and Shirai also do not disclose the decentralized identity server recording on the distributed ledger, a history for the one or more of the print job and the scan job that have been printed or scanned including when printed or scanned and an identifier associated with the history for the one or more of the print job and the scan job that have been printed or scanned.
However, Elhassen et al disclose a document management method and system to monitor activity associated with a processed document, apply security controls to a document, and provide a full organizational audit history of documents processed. The document management system provides the ability to intercept documents as they are processed in order to identify their content and usage, and correlate any prior activity of the original or later version of the content or document, create a life cycle view of an organization's use of content and documents across their enterprise, read, recognize and extract embedded data from a secure marking technology such as glyph, image or QR code to identify and categorize the specific content and document being used in relation to other known content and documents processed, and automatically apply a document specific marking on print, copy, scan, fax, and other that represent document details such as document form, owner, user, date, time, and destination. In addition, users will not unknowingly violate an information and security violation based on configured document controls, clients have access to usage trends, history and behaviors detailing who, when and how frequent their user community uses specific organizational data and documents, and clients are able to see opportunities for process and document workflow optimization (par. 70).
Elhassen et al disclose the document management system shown in FIG. 6 and FIG. 7 provides a system in which users converting a document in analog form (paper document) into a digital form (an electronic document) are access controlled (restricted to copy, scan, fax, print, etc.), and prohibited from doing so if the access control does not allow such behavior. Special markers (e.g., glyphs, micro-text, bar code, Quick Response (QR) code, etc.) either identify the document or contain access control information within them. For this workflow, the access rights of the person performing the operation on a document are verified against access rules embedded within the document before completing the requested operation on the document using the requested device. A rule based system verifies the access rights. The system generates a full document lifecycle across the digital/physical boundary and provides enhanced protection of scan-based workflows (Scan, Copy, Fax). By registering with the document management system an organization's known secure markings with associated levels of access and governance each marking represents, paper documents can be secured and controlled based on the image recognition of the existing secure markings and application of controls that align with those marking(s). Users attempting to process (scan) a document with an existing secure mark printed on it, such as a watermark, glyph, micro-text, or registered QR Code are restricted to what that secure marking process and their associated user permissions have been pre-configured to allow. Control can be extended to operations such as copy, scan, fax, and print from (par. 71-72).
The audit history of processed documents recorded by the docket management system in Elhassen et al, as reflected for example by the updating of document activity logs or records in steps described with respect to Figs. 5, 7, and 10A-10B, relates to the recording history step recite in claim 14. The user's experience of interacting with the document management system in Elhassen et al, specifically control of compliant activities as described with respect to steps 502-506, 704, 706, 708, 710, and 522 in Fig. 7 (par. 84-86), as well as similar steps in Figs. 10A-10B), relates to the steps recited in claims 3-5 and 18-19.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Towata, Sohma, and Shirai in view of Elhassen et al to have modified the decentralized identity server to record a history on the distributed ledger as recited in claim 14 and to have modified the multifunction printer to print the print job with a decentralized identity code on contents of the printed print job, wherein the decentralized identity code is a quick response code and a user identifier (e.g., owner), and sending the decentralized identity code from the printed print job to the decentralized identity server for authorization as recited in claims 3-5 and 18-19 in order to provide a full audit history of processed documents for improved document monitoring, control, and security compliance and to provide physical security of a paper documents by preventing users from violating any information and security policies or ownership rights associated with the document.
While Elhassen et al do not recite the decentralized identity code a uniform resource locator (URL), it is notoriously old and well-known to incorporate a URL in a QR code whereby documents and/or other required or useful information can be located easily and dynamically on the web, securely or otherwise. For that reason, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Towata, Sohma, Shirai and Elhassen et al in view of the well-known prior art whereby the decentralized identity code can include a uniform resource locator.
Referring to claim 15:
While Sohma and Elhassen et al discloses performing user and/or administrator notifications, the combination of Towata, Sohma, Shirai, and Elhassen does not include the decentralized identity server sending a notification to one or more users that the one or more of the print job or the scan job has been determined to be obsolete based on a predetermined setting associated with the one or more of the print job or the scan job.
However, it is notoriously old and well-known to notify users or administrators of documents files that have become obsolete, e.g., beyond a predetermined retention date. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Towata, Sohma, Shirai, and Elhassen et al in view of the well-known prior art whereby such a notification is performed in order to mitigate legal risks, improve operational efficiency, and reduce costs associated with prolonged storage of unnecessary data.
Cited Art
The prior art and other references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Murdoch et al (US 11381567 B2) disclose executing an application within a scope of user-granted permission in a decentralized network that implements a distributed ledger. First, receiving a request from an entity for using data stored in a data storage that is associated with a DID owner as one or more inputs of an application associated with the entity to generate one or more results. Next, one or more characteristics of the application associated with the entity is identified. Based on identified one or more characteristics, a scope of permission to access the requested data that is to be granted to the entity is determined. Then, the scope of permission is granted to the entity to use the data as the one or more inputs of the application associated with the entity. Finally, the one or more results from the application is received.
Murdoch et al (US 11411959 B2) disclose executing an application in a container within a scope of user-granted permission in a decentralized network that implements a distributed ledger. Receiving a request from an entity for using data stored in a data storage that is associated with a DID as one or more inputs of an application associated with the entity to generate one or more results. One or more characteristics of the application is identified. Based on the identified characteristics, a scope of permission to use the requested data is determined. Next, the scope of permission is granted to a container where the application is stored or is to be stored. The application is then executed in the container using the data within the granted scope of permission as input to generate one or more results.
Su et al (US 20240089392 A1) disclose a system and method for authenticating direct network print jobs including registering users for direct printing with a cloud print server. Registration information is stored as a mapping record including a user name, their computer name and an email address associated with their cloud storage account. When a user sends a print job directly to an MFP at its network address, the MFP checks with the cloud server to determine if the user is registered in accordance with their associated mapping record. If so, a permissions list for that user is checked to determine whether the user has print permission. The user's direct print is then released and their document is printed.
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 Scott Rogers whose telephone number is 571-272-7467. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am to 7 pm flex.
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 on 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.
/Scott A Rogers/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
23 August 2026
Prosecution Insights