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 .
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2010/0124355) in view of Hong (US 2010/0157349).
Regarding Claim 1, Saito teaches an image forming apparatus (Paragraph 2) comprising:
a scanner (Paragraph 86, wherein there is a reading device);
a communication unit (Paragraph 58, wherein the document processing device is connected to a network and therefore has a communication unit);
a user interface unit (Element 82 and Paragraph 87, wherein there is a UI);
a processor (Paragraph 30, wherein there is a CPU); and
a memory to store instructions executable by the processor (Paragraph 30, wherein there is memory),
wherein the processor, by executing the instructions, is to:
generate a scanned document by scanning a document using the scanner (Paragraph 92, wherein the document is read),
obtain security level information of the scanned document based on security setting information used to detect a security level (Paragraph 62, wherein the security policy of each page is obtained).
Saito does not teach obtain information about a plurality of destinations through the user interface unit,
generate security documents respectively corresponding to security levels of the plurality of destinations from the scanned document based on the security level information of the scanned document and security level information of the plurality of destinations, and
transmit, through the communication unit, the security documents respectively corresponding to the security levels of the plurality of destinations to the plurality of destinations, respectively.
Hong teaches obtain information about a plurality of destinations through the user interface unit (Paragraph 19, wherein the destination is obtained),
generate security documents respectively corresponding to security levels of the plurality of destinations from the scanned document based on the security level information of the scanned document and security level information of the plurality of destinations (Paragraphs 38, 44, and 45, wherein the security-level and the document information is obtained and compared), and
transmit, through the communication unit, the security documents respectively corresponding to the security levels of the plurality of destinations to the plurality of destinations, respectively (Paragraphs 38, 44, and 45, wherein the security-level and the document information is obtained and compared and the documents are transmitted accordingly).
Saito and Hong are combinable because they both deal with security levels relating to scanned documents.
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 Saito with the teachings of Hong for the purpose of properly tracking and processing of shared documents (Hong: Paragraphs 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 2, Saito further teaches wherein, in a case where the document is composed of a plurality of pages, the processor, by executing the instructions, is to obtain security level information for each page of the scanned document based on the security setting information (Paragraph 101, wherein the security level is obtained for each page).
Regarding Claim 3, Saito further teaches wherein the processor, by executing the instructions, is to:
receive, through the user interface unit, an input for setting a security level of the scanned document detected according to the security setting information (Paragraphs 43 and 44, wherein the user can set the security policy),
and obtain the security level information of the scanned document based on the input for setting a security level of the scanned document (Paragraph 49, wherein the security of the document is obtained based on the setting and recognition information).
Regarding Claim 6, Hong further teaches wherein the processor, by executing the instructions, is to generate the security documents respectively corresponding to the security levels of the plurality of destinations for the security levels of the plurality of destinations, respectively, based on a result of comparing the security level information of the scanned document to the security level information of the plurality of destinations (Paragraphs 38, 44, and 45, wherein the security-level and the document information is obtained and compared and the documents are transmitted accordingly).
Saito and Hong are combinable because they both deal with security levels relating to scanned documents.
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 Saito with the teachings of Hong for the purpose of properly tracking and processing of shared documents (Hong: Paragraphs 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Hong further teaches wherein the processor, by executing the instructions, is to generate the security document composed of pages that are allowed according to the security level information of the plurality of destinations from among pages of the scanned document (Paragraphs 38-45, wherein the destination information is used to be compared to the document identifier, which can correspond to the proper pages based on the security level).
Saito and Hong are combinable because they both deal with security levels relating to scanned documents.
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 Saito with the teachings of Hong for the purpose of properly tracking and processing of shared documents (Hong: Paragraphs 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 8, Saito further teaches wherein the security setting information comprises information about a security image or a security keyword used to detect a plurality of security levels (Paragraph 25, wherein an image or keyword can be used).
Regarding Claim 9, Saito further teaches wherein the processor, by executing the instructions, is to:
set a plurality of security levels for differentiating information provided according to a security level of a destination, or perform at least one of registering a security image or a security keyword used to detect the plurality of security levels (Paragraph 25, wherein the security can be set by keyword, image, or even destination information).
Regarding Claim 10, Saito further teaches wherein the processor, by executing the instructions, is to:
display, through the user interface unit, a user interface for setting at least one destination for a user and a security level of the user (Paragraphs 99-101, wherein the User ID is input and the document is determined if the user can access the document based on the security policy), and
store destination information of the user based on information input through the user interface (Paragraphs 108-110, wherein the user can store the document information).
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2010/0124355) in view of Hong (US 2010/0157349) further in view of official notice.
Regarding Claim 4, Saito in view of Hong does not teach wherein the processor, by executing the instructions, is to receive, through the user interface unit, an input for setting at least one security level within a higher security level range including the security level of the scanned document.
Official notice is taken that it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the security level to be higher for a document. If the security level of a document can be changed, it would be changed in a manner to ensure proper security of the document. By increasing the security of the document, the minimal security that is required of the document would be maintained. This ensures proper security relating to the document.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Saito in view of Hong to include adjusting the security of the document to be that of a higher security setting to allow for greater security of the document while ensuring a minimal security to help ease convivence for the user.
Regarding Claim 5, Saito in view of Hong does not teach wherein the processor, by executing the instructions, through the user interface unit, is to:
display higher security level information including the security level information of the scanned document for each page of the scanned document, and receive an input for selecting the at least one security level based on the higher security level information.
Official notice is taken that it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the security level to be higher for a document. If the security level of a document can be changed, it would be changed in a manner to ensure proper security of the document. By increasing the security of the document, the minimal security that is required of the document would be maintained. This ensures proper security relating to the document. In order to ensure minimal security, when analyzing all pages, the security of the document would have to be set based on the page with the highest security.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Saito in view of Hong to include adjusting the security of the document to be that of a higher security setting to allow for greater security of the document while ensuring a minimal security to help ease convivence for the user.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 4 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited prior art of Hiramatsu (US20120291118) relates to identifying the security level of a page of a scanned document. The additional cited prior art of Kimura (US 20100271666) relates to setting the security modes for scanning of the document. The additional cited prior art of Kimura (US20080180740) relates to user settings of security scanning of documents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights