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 .
In amendments dated 06/23/2026, applicant(s) keep(s) claims 1 – 9. Claims 1 – 9 are still pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks on page 3 the applicant notes that the title have been amended to overcome the prior objections. In view of the amendments to the title the prior objections regarding the title is hereby withdrawn.
Applicants argue on pages 4 – 8, filed on 06/23/2026, that Takano fails to discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the applicant points out that Takano fails to teach/disclose configured to “ …. Execute first scan without requiring authentication in a case where the controller receives, via the user interface, the instruction to execute the first scan”. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons: Takano teaches an image forming apparatus capable of performing two scanning operations/instructions/commands, the first scanning operation/instruction/command can be made from said image forming apparatus (by itself) in which doesn’t requires to input authentication but take authentication at time of log-in; the second scanning operation/instruction/command can be made from a device driver, in which installed in an information processing apparatus via network 103; and it needs to input authentication via an authentication screen; and further determine (judge) if authentication is successful, then execute scanning operation/instruction/command if authentication is successful; otherwise suspend or cancel operation (if authentication fails). The scanning operations/instruction/commands corresponds to the first scan and the second scan; in which the first scan is initiated from the image forming apparatus and the second scan is initiated from the information processing apparatus (device driver) as external apparatus. Fig. 7 including abstract shows determining whether or not scan operation/instruction/command is from said image forming apparatus; and displaying an authentication information input screen if said image forming apparatus is receiving scan command from a device driver (e.g. information processing apparatus provided); so it determines if the scanning operation/instruction/command comes from the image forming apparatus or the device driver; and the use of performing scanning from the reading apparatus without authentication is conventional well-known in the art. Therefore, Takano still do indeed broadly disclose/suggest the aforementioned limitations, as required by claim 1. Therefore, the prior-cited reference continues to meet the limitations of the claims. Accordingly, these arguments fail to be persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takano (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2014/0002840 A1, hereinafter ‘Takano’).
With respect to claim 1, Takano teaches a reading apparatus (e.g., an image forming apparatus 102, Fig. 2) comprising: a user interface (e.g., operating unit 149, ¶0044, Fig. 2); a communication interface (e.g., a network I/F 144, Fig. 2); a scanner (e.g., a scan unit 151, Fig. 2); and a controller (e.g., a CPU 141, Fig. 2) configured to execute a first scan of causing the scanner to read a document in response to an instruction to execute the first scan based on an operation to the user interface (e.g., configured to execute a scanning operation using the scanning unit 151 to scan image upon a scanning executing instruction via said operating unit 149, ¶0066 - ¶0067, ¶0077, Fig. 7), and a second scan of causing the scanner to read a document in response to an instruction to execute the second scan from an external apparatus connected to the reading apparatus via the communication interface (e.g., configured to execute a second scanning operation in response to an executing instruction from a scanner driver of an information processing apparatus 101 connected to said image forming apparatus 102, ¶0059, Fig. 4), wherein the controller is configured to: execute the first scan without requiring authentication in a case where the controller receives, via the user interface, the instruction to execute the first scan (e.g., without inputting authentication, Fig. 7); and perform the authentication in a case where the controller receives, via the communication interface, the instruction to execute the second scan (e.g., perform authentication in a case when the instruction is executed from said scanned driver to execute scanning, ¶0006, ¶0077, Fig. 7), and then execute the second scan in a case where the authentication succeeds and not execute the second scan in a case where the authentication fails (e.g., if authentication is OK, then execute scanning; otherwise, if authentication is not OK, then suspend or go back to wait for another authentication executing instruction, Fig. 6A, Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 2, Takano teaches the reading apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the case where the controller receives the instruction to execute the second scan via the communication interface, the controller is configured to require authentication information to the external apparatus, and to perform the authentication by using the authentication information obtained from the external apparatus (e.g., upon executing the scan instruction, the user is required to input authentication information in order to perform authentication with the inputted authentication information, Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 8, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claim 1.
With respect to claim 9, Takano notes that the invention may be realized through the execution by a CPU (i.e., a CPU, ¶0150) of instruction codes (e.g., a program recorded, ¶0150) stored in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (e.g., stored in a recording medium of various types serving as the memory device (e.g., computer-readable medium), ¶0150).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano in view of Mizumukai (U.S Patent No. 8,345,287 B2, hereinafter ‘Mizumukai’).
With respect to claim 3, Takano teaches the reading apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein: the controller is configured to set a restriction setting value regarding a restriction of a scan; and in a case where the controller receives the instruction to execute the first scan via the user interface and where the restriction setting value indicates a restriction of the first scan, the controller is configured to restrict the first scan in accordance with the restriction setting value.
However, the aforementioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Mizumukai. In general, Mizumukai teaches wherein: the controller is configured to set a restriction setting value regarding a restriction of a scan; and in a case where the controller receives the instruction to execute the first scan via the user interface and where the restriction setting value indicates a restriction of the first scan, the controller is configured to restrict the first scan in accordance with the restriction setting value (e.g. it simply a window to set restriction setting for at least a scanning function, Col 5 (lines 1 – 12); Col 5 (lines 37 – 45); , Figs. 4 - 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the reading apparatus of Takano as taught by Mizumukai since Mizumukai suggested within Col 5 (lines 1 – 12), Col 5 (lines 37 – 45) and Figs. 4 – 6 that such modification of having the window to set restriction setting for the scanning function onto the scanning function of Takano would determine, based on restriction settings, whether or not the user is authorized to make use of the processing (scanning) indicated in a processing command input through an operation unit or the communications unit in order to prevent reduction of level of security or privacy protection arising due to deficient setting by an administrator user.
With respect to claim 4, Takano teaches the reading apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to: set a restriction setting value regarding a restriction of a scan in a manner that the restriction setting value is correlated to a user; and execute the authentication based on user information included in the instruction to execute the second scan, execute the second scan in a case where the restriction setting value does not indicate that the first scan is restricted with respect to the user indicated by the user information and where a condition for succeeding the authentication is satisfied, and restrict the second scan in a case where the restriction setting value indicates that the first scan is restricted with respect to the user indicated by the user information even if the condition for succeeding the authentication is satisfied.
However, the aforementioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Mizumukai. In general, Mizumukai teaches wherein the controller is configured to: set a restriction setting value regarding a restriction of a scan in a manner that the restriction setting value is correlated to a user; and execute the authentication based on user information included in the instruction to execute the second scan, execute the second scan in a case where the restriction setting value does not indicate that the first scan is restricted with respect to the user indicated by the user information and where a condition for succeeding the authentication is satisfied, and restrict the second scan in a case where the restriction setting value indicates that the first scan is restricted with respect to the user indicated by the user information even if the condition for succeeding the authentication is satisfied (e.g. it simply the window to set restriction setting for at least a scanning function and/or for restricting a logged-in user, Col 5 (lines 1 – 12); Col 5 (lines 37 – 45); , Figs. 4 - 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the reading apparatus of Takano as taught by Mizumukai since Mizumukai suggested within Col 5 (lines 1 – 12), Col 5 (lines 37 – 45) and Figs. 4 – 6 that such modification of having the window to set restriction setting for the scanning function onto the scanning function of Takano would determine, based on restriction settings, whether or not the user is authorized to make use of the processing (scanning) indicated in a processing command input through an operation unit or the communications unit in order to prevent reduction of level of security or privacy protection arising due to deficient setting by an administrator user.
With respect to claim 6, Takano teaches the reading apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to: set a plurality of restriction setting values each regarding a restriction of a scan in a manner that the plurality of restriction setting values are correlated to a plurality of users, respectively; and require the authentication, in a case where the controller receives the instruction to execute the second scan and where all of the plurality of restriction setting values indicates that the first scan is restricted or a restriction setting value, of the plurality of restriction setting values, corresponding to a predetermined user, of the plurality of users, indicates that the first scan is restricted.
However, the aforementioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Mizumukai. In particular, Mizumukai teaches wherein the controller is configured to: set a plurality of restriction setting values each regarding a restriction of a scan in a manner that the plurality of restriction setting values are correlated to a plurality of users, respectively; and require the authentication, in a case where the controller receives the instruction to execute the second scan and where all of the plurality of restriction setting values indicates that the first scan is restricted or a restriction setting value, of the plurality of restriction setting values, corresponding to a predetermined user, of the plurality of users, indicates that the first scan is restricted (e.g. it simply a window to set restriction setting for at least a scanning function or for restricting a plurality of users, ¶0009, Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the reading apparatus of Takano as taught by Mizumukai since Mizumukai suggested within Col 5 (lines 1 – 12), Col 5 (lines 37 – 45) and Figs. 4 – 6 that such modification of having the window to set restriction setting for the scanning function onto the scanning function of Takano would determine, based on restriction settings, whether or not each user is authorized, based on access right, to make use of the processing (scanning) indicated in a processing command input through an operation unit or the communications unit in order to prevent a logged-in user from performing an operation with respect to a job of a user other than the logged-in user and strengthen security by simply enabling device authentication.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano in view of Sato (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2019/0286393 A1, cited in an IDS filed on 04/25/2024, hereinafter ‘Sato’).
With respect to claim 5, Takano teaches the reading apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the controller is configured: to set a restriction setting value regarding a restriction of a scan in a manner that the restriction setting value is correlated with a no log-in state;
to require the authentication in a case where the controller receives the instruction to execute the second scan and where the restriction setting value indicates that the first scan in the no log-in state is restricted; and
not to require the authentication in a case where the controller receives the instruction to execute the second scan and where the restriction setting value does not indicate that the first scan in the no log-in state is restricted.
However, the aforementioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Sato. In particular, Sato teaches wherein the controller is configured: to set a restriction setting value regarding a restriction of a scan in a manner that the restriction setting value is correlated with a no log-in state; to require the authentication in a case where the controller receives the instruction to execute the second scan and where the restriction setting value indicates that the first scan in the no log-in state is restricted; and not to require the authentication in a case where the controller receives the instruction to execute the second scan and where the restriction setting value does not indicate that the first scan in the no log-in state is restricted (Sato: it determines whether a scanning function is restricted; if restricted, then perform authentication; if not, the authentication is not performed or not required, abstract, ¶0065, Figs. 3 – 5, 7B, 7C, 8 & 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the reading apparatus of Takano as taught by Sato since Sato suggested within abstract, ¶0065 and Figs. 3 – 5 & 7 - 9 that such modification requiring authentication upon a function would validate/confirm if the user is authorized/authenticated in order to allow/permit the user to obtain his desired operation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano in view of Tsujimoto (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2011/0134456 A1, hereinafter ‘Tsujimoto’).
With respect to claim 7, Takano teaches the reading apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the communication interface is an interface configured to be connected to the external apparatus via an communication line; and the controller is configured to execute the second scan without requiring the authentication in a case where the controller receives the instruction to execute the second scan from the external apparatus via the communication line; but fails to teach that said communication line is specifically an USB cable.
However, Tsujimoto teaches an USB cable (Tsujimoto: e.g., a transmission medium encompassing a USB line, ¶0159).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the reading apparatus of Takano as taught by Tsujimoto since Tsujimoto suggested in ¶0159 that such modification of using USB cable/line instead of the local network 103 of Tanako would handle greater versatility, power delivery or ease of use in order to lower operational costs.
Conclusion
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 JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Benny Q TIEU can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights