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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 tokesuch 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 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabaharan et al. (US 20240305620 ) in view of Anapliotis et al. (US 20240202725).
Regarding 1, Prabaharan teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: one or more controllers; and a display device (115 in fig. 1), wherein the one or more controllers acquire a token from a server (fig. 2: 246: access token), and display, on the display device, a first message (p0042:users are notified (e.g., with a warning) before a session is ended) indicating that the token expires soon in the case where a period for which the token can be used is within a determination period.
Prabaharan does not teach message indicating that the token expires soon in the case where a period for which the token can be used is within a determination period.
Anapliotis teaches message indicating that the token expires soon in the case where a period for which the token can be used is within a determination period (p0863: Identify SmartPass tokens expiring soon and ask user consent to extend the expiration period).
Prabaharan and Anapliotis are combinable because they both deal with access token system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Prabaharan with the teaching of Anapliotis for purpose of permitting users to access the service provider's services (abstract).
Regarding 2, Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the first message, the one or more controllers display whether or not perform a manipulation to update an expiration date of the token in a selectable manner (Anapliotis:p0863:extend the token's validity. The user's response (YES or NO) ).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 15, The structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 15. Thus, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lawrence (US 8935524).
Regarding 3, Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in the case where it is selected not to perform the manipulation to update the expiration date of the token, the one or more controllers display whether to automatically update the expiration date of the token in a selectable manner when the token expires (claim 1: automatic certificate renewal is authorized based on a selectable setting, and automatically renew the digital certificate ).
Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Lawrence are combinable because they both deal with access token system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis with Lawrence the teaching of for managing certificates.
Regarding 4, Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Lawrence teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein in the case where the expiration date of the token is automatically updated upon expiration of the token, the one or more controllers automatically update the expiration date of the token by using information acquired in advance when the token expires (Lawrence: claim 1. claim 1: automatic certificate renewal is authorized based on a selectable setting, and automatically renew the digital certificate).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporated herein.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizuno (US 20240028271).
Regarding 5, Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis does not teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when the token expires, the one or more controllers transmit, to an apparatus used by a user, information used to update the expiration date of the token remotely.
Mizuno teaches wherein when the token expires, the one or more controllers transmit, to an apparatus used by a user, information used to update the expiration date of the token remotely (p0043:a refresh token having a longer expiration date/time in order to update the access to..the refresh token and returns them to the client terminal 130)..
Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Mizuno are combinable because they both deal with access token system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis with the teaching of Mizuno for porforming error recovery for storage on a storage server, a control method of the image processing apparatus, and a recording medium.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato (US 20200195637).
Regarding 6, Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis does not teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the case where a job, an execution date and time of which is designated, is reserved, and the date and time is later than the expiration date of the token, the one or more controllers display, on the display device, a second message indicating that the reserved job possibly fails.
Sato teaches wherein in the case where a job, an execution date and time of which is designated, is reserved, and the date and time is later than the expiration date of the token, the one or more controllers display, on the display device, a second message indicating that the reserved job possibly fails (p0119: the token is invalid, the print service 370 returns an error message to the browser 390 of the client PC 104).
Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Sato are combinable because they both deal with access token system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis with the teaching of Sato for provide authentication system.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Sato as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wu (US 20210141923).
Regarding 7, Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Sato does not teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein in the case where the token expires at the time of executing the job, the one or more controllers store the job as a retriable job.
Wu teaches wherein in the case where the token expires at the time of executing the job, the one or more controllers store the job as a retriable job (p0048: The job stops execution after time T since the security token expires…the job execution module 310 restarts the job from the last saved state of the job using the new job-level credential. This process is repeated until the job completes execution..).
Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Sato and wu are combinable because they both deal with access token system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Sato with the teaching of Wu for A multi-tenant system stores data for multiple tenants and allows tenants to run applications and jobs (p0002).
Regarding 9, Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis, Sato and Wu teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the one or more controllers execute the retriable job when the expiration date of the token is updated (Wu: p0048).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 8 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Sato as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Mishim et al. (US 20230297301).
Regarding 12, Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Sato does not teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein in the case where there is the retriable job, the one or more controllers display an identifier indicating that there is the retriable job, on a screen displayed in the display device.
Mishima teaches wherein in the case where there is the retriable job, the one or more controllers display an identifier indicating that there is the retriable job, on a screen displayed in the display device (fig. 10).
Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Sato and Mishima are combinable because they both deal with access token system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Sato with the teaching of Mishima for the reception information remains stored even after the validity period expires (p0006).
Regarding 8, Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis, Sato and Mishim teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the one or more controllers display a list of the retriable jobs on the display device, and executes the retriable job selected by a user (Mishim:displays a list of the print data and p0004:performs printing in accordance with the print data stored on the memory and in accordance with the identification information included in the bibliographic information on the print data selected as a print target by the operation unit).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 12 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding 13, Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis, Sato and Mishim teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein in the case where there is the retriable job, the one or more controllers display a fourth message indicating that there is the retriable job, on a screen displayed in the display device (Mishim:fig. 10).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 12 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Sato as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Gordon et al. (US 20220188795 ).
Regarding 10, Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Sato does not teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the case where there is the token whose usable period is within a determination period, the one or more controllers display, on the display device, an identifier indicating that there is the token whose usable period is within the determination period.
Gordon teaches wherein in the case where there is the token whose usable period is within a determination period, the one or more controllers display, on the display device, an identifier indicating that there is the token whose usable period is within the determination period (fig. 5: time Remaining token and 503).
Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Sato and Gordon are combinable because they both deal with access token system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Sato with the teaching of Gordon for managing payments for goods and services in a retail establishment (p0010).
Regarding 11, Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis, Sato and Gordon teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the case where there is the token whose usable period is within a determination period, the one or more controllers display, on the display device, a third message indicating that there is the token whose usable period is within the determination period (Gordon: fig. 5).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 10 has been incorporated herein.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis, Mishim and Sato as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (US 20150116756).
Regarding 14, Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis, Mishim and Sato does not teach The information processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the one or more controllers display a button for displaying a list of the retriable jobs together with the fourth message, and displays the list of the retriable jobs on the display device when the button is selected.
Mori teaches wherein the one or more controllers display a button for displaying a list of the retriable jobs together with the fourth message, and displays the list of the retriable jobs on the display device when the button is selected (p0128: the login user may select an owner from the owner selection screen to prompt the print job information list screen to display a list of print job information of print jobs delegated to the login user by the selected owner).
Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Sato and Mori are combinable because they both deal with access token system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Prabaharan in view of Anapliotis and Sato with the teaching of Mori for enables a user to easily set up delegate output settings (p0008).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683