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 .
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, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karin (US-20220131900-A1) in view of Canon (Canon. Excerpt from Online Manual. https://oip.manual.canon/USRMA-4706-zz-CS-3700-enUV/contents/devu-mcn_mng.html. (Year: 2021)).
Regarding claim 1, Karin shows an information processing apparatus capable of being connected to a monitoring apparatus (Fig. 1 item 104) via a first network ([76,82], and Fig. 9 item 948), configured for the purpose of transmitting operation information to the first network in accordance with monitoring by the monitoring apparatus, the information processing apparatus (Fig. 1 item 102) comprising: a memory storing instructions (Fig. 9, items 904 and 924 and [76]); and a processor (Fig. 9 item 902) executing the instructions causing the information processing apparatus to: receive ([51]), from the monitoring apparatus (Fig. 2 item 206, [30-31]), registration information for the management server ([37] discussing a “security management system”) that includes information indicating an environment type ([21,28,35], and [45] discussing “test”, “production”, and “staging” environment types) of the first network to which the information processing apparatus can be connected ([21,42,45]); perform ([51] discussing reception of a command to activate security settings) a security setting corresponding to the environment type, based on information indicating the environment type ([21,42,45-46], where changed environment types can result in the operable security policy); and, communication in order to initiate a connection to the management server based on the registration information (e.g., viewing the recommended settings on the security management system server providing the web-accessible GUI discussed in [37]). Karin does not show: transmitting operation information to a management server via a second network (and thus also lacks where the information processing apparatus performs communication in order to connect to the management server). Canon shows: transmitting operation information to a management server via a second network (e.g., where the first network is represented by the local connection (i.e., LAN) between the multifunction copy/print/fax/scan device and a, e.g., PC – as discussed on pages. 10 and 12 – and the second network is represented by the Internet, which facilitates connectivity to a management server represented by the Canon driver-providing server of pg. 10 or the registration server of pgs. 13, and 19-24), and where the information processing apparatus performs communication in order to connect to the management server (pgs. 5, 10, and 12 discussing Internet access performed via a proxy (representing the claimed monitoring apparatus) as part of the registration (pg. 12) and configuration (pg. 10) of the multifunction device – the Internet-accessible management server facilitating driver installation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the multi-environment device adaptation of Karin with the device configuration steps of Canon in order to facilitate initial connectivity of the managed device to both local and remote devices, ensuring management can be performed locally while also ensuring up-to-date drivers and configuration options can be easily retrieved (e.g., via the Internet).
Regarding claim 8, the above combination further shows the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the registration information further includes (Canon, pg. 10, discussing where Internet access (via the proxy) is used as part of registration (pg. 12) and configuration (pg. 10)) identification information that identifies the monitoring apparatus (Canon, pg. 5 lines 46-55), and a registration code used in registration (Canon, pg. 12 as a whole and lines 10-12 and 57-66 in particular) to the management server (Canon, pg. 10 lines 10-20 and pg. 12 lines 9-11).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 1.
Claims 2 – 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karin in view of Canon, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Honda (US-20040072580-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Karin in view of Canon shows claim 1. Karin in view of Canon does not show: wherein the processor is configured to store recommended setting data that includes setting values of a plurality of security functions associated with the environment type, and perform the security settings based on the recommended setting data. Honda shows wherein the processor is configured to store recommended setting data that includes setting values of a plurality of security functions associated with the environment type, and perform the security settings based on the recommended setting data ([32, 72-73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above combination with the security functionality implementation of Honda in order to further utilize the specified environmental information to facilitate improved security protections (including those pre-selected with particular operating environments in mind) thus improving system reliability. Regarding claim 3, the above combination further shows wherein the recommended setting data includes information that indicates a plurality of environment types of different networks, and associates setting values of the plurality of security functions for each one of the environment types (Honda, [33, 49-52, 69, 71]).
Regarding claim 4, the above combination further shows wherein the processor is further configured to accept a change of the environment type by a user (Honda, [31,38]).
Regarding claim 6, the above combination further shows wherein the processor is further configured to accept a change of setting values of the plurality of security functions by a user (Honda, 79]).
Regarding claim 7, the above combination further shows wherein the processor is configured to restrict the change of at least one of the setting values of the plurality of security functions (Canon, pgs. 16-19).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karin in view of Canon and Honda, as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Busak (US-5461372-A).
Regarding claim 5, Karin in view of Canon and Honda shows claim 2.
The above combination does not show wherein the processor is configured to restrict the change to at least one of the plurality of environment types. Busak shows wherein the processor is configured to restrict the change to at least one of the plurality of environment types (Fig. 8, steps 1210 -> 1215 -> 1216).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above combination with the security controls of Busak in order to ensure security modifications are only performed by trusted users, preventing unwanted security modifications that disrupt the system’s desired operational state.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karin in view of Canon, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Haga (US-20110087724-A1)
Regarding claim 9, Karin in view of Canon shows claim 1, including wherein the
information processing apparatus is an image forming apparatus provided with at least one function of a printer function and a scanner function (Canon, pg. 2 lines 21-23, see “copy/print/fax/scan”).
The above combination does not show: wherein the operation information includes data recorded based on the use of at least one of the functions. Haga shows wherein the operation information includes data recorded based on the use of at least one of the functions ([3]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above combination with the data use tracking of Haga in order to ensure consumable part health is reliably monitored so repair and replacement operations can be performed in a timely and efficient manner (Haga, [3]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes:
Kulkarni (US-20230153044-A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M MACILWINEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571) 272 - 3949. 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.
JOHN MACILWINEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2442
/JOHN M MACILWINEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454