DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing 01/12/2026. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are pending and have been fully examined.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, it is not clear of what is encompassed and meant by the phrase, “even if the MFP supports acceptance of the operation via the network…” [emph. added] as recited on lines 14-15 of page 1 of the claims. It is unclear what is intended by the term “even if.” A review of the disclosure appears to place the claimed limitation providing the second control at S409, conditionally following S408 verifying if the MFP supports acceptance of the operation [Fig. 4]. However, use of the word even in the term “even if” encompasses situations where the preceding condition is not met. As claimed the term is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. It is unclear if this phrase, as claimed, is intended to mean: executing a second control 1) only if the MFP supports acceptance of the operation or 2) regardless of if the MFP supports acceptance of the operation. It is suggested that the applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosure and clearly disclose what the term “only if” is intended to mean. For the purposes of examination, the term “even if” as recited in Claim 1 will be interpreted to mean “regardless of if.” Independent Claim 5 recites similarly, and Claims 2-3 and 6-7 depend respectively.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patti et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 20230062439) in view of Larson et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 20030069848).
Regarding Claim 1, Patti teaches,
A remote system in a network device diagnosis system that diagnoses an abnormality in a network device, the remote system comprising: an acceptance unit configured to accept login of a user to the remote system (Event remediation platform (120) [Fig. 1; 0025&0037; metadata (134) includes identification information of a user including authority level associated with performing operations [Fig. 1; 0043]);
and a provision unit configured to provide a log-in user having logged in to the remote system with a diagnosis result screen for a multifunction peripheral (MFP) as the network device (runbook execution engine (123) ("provision unit") includes sets of operations for diagnosing/remediating types of events and provides said diagnosis results to the user interface (126) [Fig. 1; 0040]; where the runbook execution engine (123) further provides runbooks for execution based on events at a monitored system (110) [0039]; where system (110) includes devices (plural) and one or more components, therefore a "multifunctional peripheral" [0038]),
wherein, the provision unit is configured to execute, on the diagnosis result screen, first control for accepting an instruction of an operation via a network in dependence on the MFP supporting acceptance of the operation via the network (the devices may be connected via a network [0146-0148] and the network device may receive operations ("first control") which are operable remotely (exemplary: "a runbook operation named “run antivirus software” may include a selectable button that, when selected, causes the computer to run the antivirus software") [0061]) and an authority of the log-in user being an authority required to execute an operation necessary for the MFP (where the authority level/expertise of a user is associated with operations to be performed [0043]; where, by example, the system may selectively provide results according to an authorization level at an entity [0071]; where further by example, the system provides control via a selectable icon to an alternate entity ("supporting acceptance") [0069] the examiner notes that this is presented in a case where the system requires remote-aid, and is therefore a different control),
and wherein, even if the MFP supports acceptance of the operation via the network, the provision unit is configured to execute, on the diagnosis result screen, second control for accepting an instruction to provide a screen to explain detailed contents of the operation (the runbook execution interface ("diagnosis result screen") may enable the user to view the operations in detail (a distinct "second control," independent of the conditions surrounding the "first control"; therefore also "even if the MFP supports acceptance...") [0040 & 0056]) on a basis that the operation necessary for the MFP includes an operation required to be performed at a location where the network device is placed (the system may require operations to be performed at the remotely located device [0068]; where, by example, the system may require a particular authorization level and provide results accordingly [0071]; where further the runbook session may include operations entirely performed by a user [at the device] [0081], including by example, tasks requiring the user to be physically present at the location where the network device is placed [0082] where the runbook operation itself directs users, therefore is different in a case where an operation requires a physically present user [0083]),
Patti does not appear to disclose and Larson teaches,
and wherein, on the diagnosis result screen, the first control is not provided in dependence on the MFP not supporting acceptance of the operation via the network (where displayed functions [to the user] ("the first control") vary according to functions specific to and available to the device (selected by and under control of the user [0009 & Fig. 2]) [0058]; also see [0059-0079] exemplary showing functions that might be displayed to the user according to the device, further exemplary only showing functions/controls that are particular to the functionality ("MFP ... supporting acceptance of the operation") of "the device"; the examiner notes that by providing dynamic menu functions according to the device's capabilities, a function (control) is not provided if the device cannot perform the functionality ("not supporting acceptance of the operation")).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the network device diagnosis system and interface displaying controls to a user regarding a remote device of Patti to include the dynamically displayed controls on a menu-driven diagnosis interface of Larson. The resulting combination allows only functions that can be effectively performed to be displayed to the user, as a function cannot be effectively performed if the device is not capable of performing the function [Larson; 0058].
Regarding Claim 2, Patti teaches,
The remote system according to claim 1, wherein the authority of the log-in user includes at least one of a role or a skill level of the log- in user (a user's authority level may include: technical expertise ("skill level") [0064] and role (exemplary shown as "supervisor-level employee") [0066]).
Regarding Claim 3, Patti teaches,
The remote system according to claim 2, wherein, on the diagnosis result screen, third control for accepting an instruction to request another user having a role different from the role of the log-in user to perform the operation is executed on a basis that the operation necessary for the MFP is unavailable with the authority of the log-in user (the system determines if the first ("log-in") user has the authority level to perform one or more operations [0062] where the first user may request a second user to perform the one or more operations (a "third control") [0042]).
Claims 5-7 recite a shift in statutory category and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Patti in view of Larson for the same reasons as Claims 1-3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant argues that Patti does not disclose, “and wherein, even if the MFP supports acceptance of the operation via the network, the provision unit is configured to execute, on the diagnosis result screen, second control for accepting an instruction to provide a screen to explain detailed contents of the operation on a basis that the operation necessary for the MFP includes an operation required to be performed at a location where the network device is placed, and wherein, on the diagnosis result screen, the first control is not provided in dependence on the MFP not supporting acceptance of the operation via the network.” Applicant particularly argues that, “Nothing [… in Patti discloses] a user interface screen is switched in consideration of whether or not the device to be diagnosed supports remote operation,” on Page 8. The act of “switching a user interface screen” is not claimed. The specific requirement of “remote operation” is not claimed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed phrase, “the MFP supporting acceptance of the operation via the network” encompasses, at least, both: 1) the MFP having the capability to accept operations over the network and 2) the MFP supporting a particular operation that is delivered via the network. While [0069, 0071, and 0082-83] of Patti is reproduced demonstrating Patti’s interface features, the Examiner finds no particular, specific argument as to why the reproduced limitations above are not disclosed by Patti. While no clear argument is provided and Patti discloses positive recitation of remote operation [Patti; 0061], the Examiner agrees that Patti does not appear to disclose a first control not being provided if the MFP does not support acceptance of the operation via the network and instead relies upon Larson to teach this limitation [Larson; 0058], please see above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McEwen et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 20160078370) teaches a ticketing system employing user authorization levels [0050].
Sawada et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 20120013936) teaches a remote management system [0008] which considers user authority [0039].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY E WHITESELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4767. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm MST.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 5712723655. 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.
/A.E.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113