DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Amendments and response received 12/10/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-20 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1, 10 and 18 have been amended and claims 3 and 12 canceled. Amendments and response are addressed hereinbelow.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tom Haapanen et al (US 20170126671 A1) in view of Takanobu Suzuki et al (US 20230188967 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haapanen et al discloses a multi-function device (MFD) with printing and scanning hardware (¶ [43]), comprising:
a local communication interface (¶ [61]);
a proximity sensor to detect a user within a detection range (¶ [15] and ¶ [17]);
a processor (Fig. 5 numeral 502); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a plurality of instructions, which when executed by the processor (¶ [59]), causes the processor to perform operations comprising:
detecting the user within the detection range via the proximity sensor (¶ [17]);
scanning a mobile device of the user for a device identification via the local communication interface (¶ [17]);
determining that the device identification is associated with the user that is authorized on the MFD (¶ [44]); and
automatically logging the user into the MFD using a device identification (¶ [17] and ¶ [44]);
wherein the device identification comprises at least one of: a Bluetooth identification (ID) of the mobile device, a device serial number of the mobile device, or a media access control (MAC) identification number of the mobile device (¶ [14] device’s MAC address).
Haapanen et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the user has pre-registered a mobile device with the MFD as being authorized to access the MFD using a device identification.
Suzuki et al, in the same field of endeavor of a method of authenticating a mobile device to use a peripheral device (¶ [51]), teaches wherein the user has pre-registered a mobile device with the MFD as being authorized to access the MFD (¶ [34]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the MFD as disclosed by Haapanen et al comprising a proximity sensor to detect a user within a detection range to utilize the teachings of Suzuki et al which teaches wherein the user has pre-registered a mobile device with the MFD as being authorized to access the MFD to establish a verified secure connection and prevent data leakage.
Haapanen et al fails to explicitly disclose the authentication or automatic login of the user to the MFD being based on the device identification that is associated with the user.
Bhandarkar teaches disclose the authentication or automatic login of the user to the MFD being based on the device identification that is associated with the user (¶ [57-58] wherein authentication is automatically performed based on the mobile device being in the vicinity of the (e.g., printer)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the MFD as disclosed by Haapanen et al comprising a proximity sensor to detect a user within a detection range to utilize the teachings of Suzuki et al which teaches the authentication or automatic login of the user to the MFD being based on the device identification that is associated with the user to avoid time-consuming authentication processes and provide a more efficient method of accessing remote devices.
Regarding claim 2, Haapanen et al discloses the MFD of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the local communication interface comprises a Bluetooth communication interface (¶ [56]).
Regarding claim 4, Haapanen et al discloses the MFD of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), further comprising a wide area network communication interface to establish a connection to an authentication server (¶ [44-45]).
Regarding claim 10, Haapanen et al discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor of a multi-function device (MFD), a signal that a user is within a detection range of a proximity sensor of the MFD (see rejection of claim 1; detection of user), wherein the user has pre-registered a mobile device with the MFD as being authorized to access the MFD using a device identification (see rejection of claim 1);
scanning, by the processor, the mobile device of the user for the device identification via a local communication interface (see rejection of claim 1);
determining, via the processor, that the device identification is associated with the user that is authorized on the MFD (see rejection of claim 1); and
automatically logging, via the processor, the user into the MFD based on the device identification that is associated with the user, wherein the device identification comprises at least one of: a Bluetooth identification (ID) of the mobile device, a device serial number of the mobile device, or a media access control (MAC) identification number of the mobile device (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Haapanen et al discloses the method of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10), wherein the local communication interface comprises a Bluetooth communication interface (see rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 18, Haapanen et al discloses a method, comprising:
detecting, via a processor of a mobile device, a Bluetooth signal of a multi-function device (MFD) that is broadcast in response to a proximity sensor of the MFD detecting a user of the mobile device within a detection range (¶ [9]; ¶ [48] and ¶ [56]), wherein the user has pre-registered the mobile device with the MFD as being authorized to access the MFD using a device identification (see rejection of claim 1);
receiving, via the processor, a Bluetooth identification of the MFD (¶ [11]);
determining, via the processor, that the MFD is an authorized MFD (¶ [75]);
transmitting, via the processor, a request to automatically log in the user on the authorized MFD based on the device identification that is associated with the mobile device of the user (¶ [77]), wherein the device identification comprises at least one of: a Bluetooth identification (ID) of the mobile device, a device serial number of the mobile device, or a media access control (MAC) identification number of the mobile device (see rejection of claim 1); and
transmitting, via the processor, a pending print job to the authorized MFD (¶ [40]).
Regarding claim 19, Haapanen et al discloses the method of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18), further comprising:
receiving, via the processor, status information of the MFD before transmitting the pending print job (¶ [18] making user aware of availability of output device).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tom Haapanen et al (US 20170126671 A1) in view of Suzuki et al as applied to claims 2, 11 and 19 above, and further in view of Marianne Kodimer (US 20180115454 A1)
Regarding claim 20, Haapanen et al discloses the method of claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19).
Haapanen et al fails to explicitly disclose redirecting, via the processor, the pending print job to
another authorized MFD when the status information indicates that a print queue has a number of pending
print jobs greater than a threshold.
Kodimer teaches redirecting, via the processor, the pending print job to another authorized MFD
when the status information indicates that a print queue has a number of pending print jobs greater than a
threshold (¶ [26] and ¶ [35]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively
filed for the MFD as disclosed by Haapanen et al comprising a proximity sensor to detect a user within a
detection range to utilize the teachings of Kodimer which teaches redirecting, via the processor, the pending
print job to another authorized MFD when the status information indicates that a print queue has a number
of pending print jobs greater than a threshold to optimize throughput of the printing system by reducing
waiting time.
Claims 5-7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haapanen et al in view of Suzuki et al as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Tetsuya Onishi (US 20160094756 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Haapanen et al discloses the MFD of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4).
Haapanen et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the operations performed by the processor, further comprises requesting account information associated with the user from the authentication server; and configuring the MFD in accordance with the account information.
Onishi, in the same field of endeavor of authenticated a user at an MFP utilizing proximity information of the user to the MFP (Abstract), teaches requesting account information associated with the user from the authentication server (¶ [129] and ¶ [131] wherein a request for authentication is performed which triggers the transfer of a formal ID that is used for acquiring user profile information); and configuring the MFD in accordance with the account information (¶ [152]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the MFD as disclosed by Haapanen et al comprising a proximity sensor to detect a user within a detection range to utilize the teachings of Onishi which teaches requesting account information associated with the user from the authentication server and configuring the MFD in accordance with the account information to increase convenience for the user by creating a more desirable, user-friendly interface.
Regarding claim 6, Haapanen et al discloses the MFD of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5), wherein the configuring the MFD in accordance with the account information, comprises the processor performing operations further comprising: applying a personalized user interface of the user to a user interface (see rejection of claim 5; Customized display of manipulation unit for the user).
Regarding claim 7, Haapanen et al discloses the MFD of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5).
Haapanen et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the configuring the MFD in accordance with the account information, comprises the processor performing operations further comprising retrieving a pending print job for the user; and executing the pending print job for the user on the MFD.
Onishi teaches retrieving a pending print job for the user (¶ [163] cloud server path information; ¶ [53] cloud server contains user’s documents for output); and executing the pending print job for the user on the MFD (¶ [49-50]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the MFD as disclosed by Haapanen et al comprising a proximity sensor to detect a user within a detection range to utilize the teachings of Onishi which teaches retrieving a pending print job for the user; and executing the pending print job for the user on the MFD to increase efficiency in the usage of the apparatus in accordance with a user’s options.
Regarding claim 13, Haapanen et al discloses the method of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10), further comprising:
establishing, via the processor, a connection to an authentication server via a wide area network communication interface of the MFD (see rejection of claim 4);
requesting, via the processor, account information associated with the user from the authentication server (see rejection of claim 5); and
configuring, via the processor, the MFD in accordance with the account information (see rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 14, Haapanen et al discloses the method of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13), wherein the configuring the MFD in accordance with the account information, comprises:
applying, via the processor, a personalized user interface of the user to the user interface (see rejection of claim 6).
Regarding claim 15, Haapanen et al discloses the method of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13), wherein the configuring the MFD in accordance with the account information, comprises:
retrieving, via the processor, a pending print job for the user (see rejection of claim 7); and
executing, via the processor, the pending print job for the user on the MFD (see rejection of claim 7).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haapanen et al in view of Suzuki et al as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Hyun-Wook Park et al (US 20170134609 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Haapanen et al discloses the MFD of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Haapanen et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein a second user is detected within the detection range via the proximity sensor and the operations performed by the processor further comprises determining a second device identification associated with a second mobile device of the second user; and displaying a notification with the device identification of the mobile device of the user and the second device identification of the second mobile device of the second user on the user interface to allow the user to confirm the device identification associated with the user.
Park et al, in the same field of endeavor of connecting mobile devices to an image forming apparatus via wireless communication (Abstract), teaches wherein a second user is detected within the detection range via the proximity sensor and the operations performed by the processor further comprises determining a second device identification associated with a second mobile device of the second user (¶ [219]); and displaying a notification with the device identification of the mobile device of the user and the second device identification of the second mobile device of the second user on the user interface to allow the user to confirm the device identification associated with the user (¶ [219]; Fig. 6C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the MFD as disclosed by Haapanen et al comprising a proximity sensor to detect a user within a detection range to utilize the teachings of Park et al which teaches a second user is detected within the detection range via the proximity sensor and the operations performed by the processor further comprises determining a second device identification associated with a second mobile device of the second user; and displaying a notification with the device identification of the mobile device of the user and the second device identification of the second mobile device of the second user on the user interface to allow the user to confirm the device identification associated with the user to quickly achieve a desired output when implementing image formation with accuracy.
Regarding claim 16, Haapanen et al discloses the method of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10), further comprising:
receiving, via the processor, a second signal that a second user is detected within the detection range via the proximity sensor (see rejection of claim 8);
determining, via the processor, a second device identification associated with a second mobile device of the second user (see rejection of claim 8); and
displaying, via the processor, a notification with the device identification of the mobile device of the user and the second device identification of the second mobile device of the second user on the user interface to allow the user to confirm the device identification associated with the user (see rejection of claim 8).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tom Haapanen et al (US 20170126671 A1) in view of Suzuki et al as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Atsushi Watanabe (US 20130222827 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Haapanen et al discloses the MFD of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Haapanen et al fails to explicitly disclose the operations further comprise retrieving a pending print job for the user.
Watanabe, in the same field of endeavor of wirelessly connecting nearby mobile devices to printing devices (¶ [6]), teaches retrieving a pending print job for the user (¶ [11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the MFD as disclosed by Haapanen et al comprising a proximity sensor to detect a user within a detection range to utilize the teachings of Watanabe which teaches retrieving a pending print job for the user to protect confidential, proprietary or otherwise highly sensitive print jobs.
Regarding claim 17, Haapanen et al discloses the method of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10), further comprising:
retrieving, via the processor, a pending print job for the user (see rejection of claim 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
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 JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
January 5, 2026