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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/23/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub 2014/0293315 to Takarabe et al.
Regarding claim 1. Takarabe discloses an image processing apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions (Fig. 1, ROM 21b, RAM 21c); and
one or more processors (Fig. 1, CPU 21a) capable of executing the instructions,
wherein execution of the instructions causes the one or more processors to cause the image processing apparatus to:
enable restriction on some functions of the image processing apparatus as a first function restriction (“The first restriction information is information that defines a value showing whether or not each function of the MFP 10 is executable for each user. The authentication information is registered with the MFP 10 in advance by each user or the administrator of the MFP 10, and the first restriction information is registered with the MFP 10 in advance by the administrator of the MFP 10”, paragraph 38),
enable restriction on some functions of the image processing apparatus as a second function restriction different from the first function restriction (“The second restriction information is information that defines the behavior of the MFP 10 in a case in which the authentication information is not included in a usage request for the function of the MFP 10. In the present embodiment, the second restriction information is information that defines whether all functions of the MFP 10 are made collectively executable or collectively non-executable”, paragraph 38), and
perform control on a function targeted for restriction by both the first function restriction and the second function restriction, in accordance with a setting value of the function based on the restrictions (“it is determined whether the prescribed function is executable based on the first restriction information. When it is determined that the prescribed function is executable, the prescribed function can be executed in response to the usage request. Also, when a usage request for a prescribed function that does not include authentication information, even if user authentication is conducted, the user authentication will not be able to be established because the authentication information is not included. However, it can be determined whether or not the prescribed function is executable based on the second restriction information instead of conducting user authentication, and when it is determined that the prescribed function is executable, the prescribed function can be executed in response to the usage request. Conventionally, user authentication is conducted regardless of whether authentication information is included or not. Therefore, in a case in which authentication information is not included, it is considered that authentication is not established at all times, and the prescribed function cannot be executed. However, in the present embodiment, it is possible to select whether or not the prescribed function is executed based on the second restriction information even in a case in which a usage request that does not include authentication information is acquired”, paragraph 48).
Regarding claim 4. Takarabe discloses wherein the second function restriction is a restriction that is set as a security policy by a security administrator in a case where the security administrator has been successfully authenticated (“the administrator of the MFP 10, and the first restriction information is registered with the MFP 10 in advance by the administrator of the MFP 10. Further, as shown in FIG. 2C, second restriction information is stored in advance in the non-volatile memory of the controller 11. The second restriction information is information that defines the behavior of the MFP 10 in a case in which the authentication information is not included in a usage request for the function of the MFP 10. In the present embodiment, the second restriction information is information that defines whether all functions of the MFP 10 are made collectively executable or collectively non-executable”, paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 5. Takarabe discloses wherein the instructions further cause the image processing apparatus to perform initialization processing for initialing a setting of the image processing apparatus, and wherein first initialization processing or second initialization processing is performed as the initialization processing, the first initialization processing being not to initialize a setting intended for the first function restriction and the second function restriction, the second initialization processing being to initialize a setting intended for the second function restriction (“as shown in FIG. 4A, each user may be arranged to belong to any group, and as shown in FIG. 4B, the availability of each function may be defined for each group. Then, as shown in FIG. 4C, in the second restriction information, the same set value may be used as one in any of the groups shown in FIG. 4B”, paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 6. Takarabe discloses wherein with respect to the function targeted for restriction by the first function restriction and the second function restriction, the control is performed in such a manner that the function is to be used with a setting value satisfying both the restrictions on respective targeted setting items (“The technical scope of the present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiment, and it is apparent that various changes can be made without departing from the subject matter of the present invention. For example, in the above-described embodiment, the second restriction information is information for collectively setting the availability of all functions. However, it may be information for setting the availability of each function. For example, as shown in FIG. 4A, each user may be arranged to belong to any group, and as shown in FIG. 4B, the availability of each function may be defined for each group. Then, as shown in FIG. 4C, in the second restriction information, the same set value may be used as one in any of the groups shown in FIG. 4B”, paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 7. Takarabe discloses a control method of an image processing apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
enabling restriction on some functions of the image processing apparatus as a first function restriction (“The first restriction information is information that defines a value showing whether or not each function of the MFP 10 is executable for each user. The authentication information is registered with the MFP 10 in advance by each user or the administrator of the MFP 10, and the first restriction information is registered with the MFP 10 in advance by the administrator of the MFP 10”, paragraph 38);
enabling restriction on some functions of the image processing apparatus as a second function restriction different from the first function restriction (“The second restriction information is information that defines the behavior of the MFP 10 in a case in which the authentication information is not included in a usage request for the function of the MFP 10. In the present embodiment, the second restriction information is information that defines whether all functions of the MFP 10 are made collectively executable or collectively non-executable”, paragraph 38); and
performing control on a function targeted for restriction by both the first function restriction and the second function restriction, in accordance with a setting value of the function based on the restrictions (“it is determined whether the prescribed function is executable based on the first restriction information. When it is determined that the prescribed function is executable, the prescribed function can be executed in response to the usage request. Also, when a usage request for a prescribed function that does not include authentication information, even if user authentication is conducted, the user authentication will not be able to be established because the authentication information is not included. However, it can be determined whether or not the prescribed function is executable based on the second restriction information instead of conducting user authentication, and when it is determined that the prescribed function is executable, the prescribed function can be executed in response to the usage request. Conventionally, user authentication is conducted regardless of whether authentication information is included or not. Therefore, in a case in which authentication information is not included, it is considered that authentication is not established at all times, and the prescribed function cannot be executed. However, in the present embodiment, it is possible to select whether or not the prescribed function is executed based on the second restriction information even in a case in which a usage request that does not include authentication information is acquired”, paragraph 48).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takarabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PG Pub 2011/0002003 to Suwabe.
Regarding claim 2. Takarabe discloses wherein the first function restriction is set by the image processing apparatus using a dedicated tool (“The administrator of the MFP 10 can input the set value of the authentication mode by operating the user I/F section 12 or the like in advance”, paragraph 38), and wherein the instructions further cause the image processing apparatus to present, in a case where use of a function targeted for restriction by the first function restriction and second function restriction is instructed, use of the function is restricted by the first function restriction, not by the second function restriction (“it is determined whether the prescribed function is executable based on the first restriction information. When it is determined that the prescribed function is executable, the prescribed function can be executed in response to the usage request.”, paragraph 48).
Takarabe does not disclose a screen indicating that use. However, Suwabe in the same art of an image processing apparatus that restricts the use of functions on a user, does disclose a screen indicating that use (“if the user is prohibited from printing from a Box, an error display 1100 shown in FIG. 11 is displayed. FIG. 11 is a diagram showing the error display 1100. As shown in FIG. 11, if the function for printing a document from a Box is prohibited according to the function restriction information, document printing is prohibited, and the error display 1100 is displayed as a pop-up window on the setting screen 900”, paragraph 65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takarabe’s image processing device to include: a screen indicating that use.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takarabe’s image processing device by the teaching of Suwabe because of the following reasons: (a) enables realization of an image processing apparatus that restricts the use of a function on a user, (paragraph 5, Suwabe); and (b) to improve convenience of a usage request from a device in which authentication information cannot be input while activating a user authentication function as taught by Takarabe at paragraph 7.
Regarding claim 3. The image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in a case where use of a function not targeted for restriction by the first function restriction but targeted for restriction by the second function restriction is instructed, a screen indicating that use of the function is restricted by the second function restriction is presented (“it can be determined whether or not the prescribed function is executable based on the second restriction information instead of conducting user authentication, and when it is determined that the prescribed function is executable, the prescribed function can be executed in response to the usage request. Conventionally, user authentication is conducted regardless of whether authentication information is included or not. Therefore, in a case in which authentication information is not included, it is considered that authentication is not established at all times, and the prescribed function cannot be executed. However, in the present embodiment, it is possible to select whether or not the prescribed function is executed based on the second restriction information even in a case in which a usage request that does not include authentication information is acquired”, paragraph 48).
Takarabe does not disclose a screen indicating that use. However, Suwabe in the same art of an image processing apparatus that restricts the use of functions on a user, does disclose a screen indicating that use (“if the user is prohibited from printing from a Box, an error display 1100 shown in FIG. 11 is displayed. FIG. 11 is a diagram showing the error display 1100. As shown in FIG. 11, if the function for printing a document from a Box is prohibited according to the function restriction information, document printing is prohibited, and the error display 1100 is displayed as a pop-up window on the setting screen 900”, paragraph 65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takarabe’s image processing device to include: a screen indicating that use.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takarabe’s image processing device by the teaching of Suwabe because of the following reasons: (a) enables realization of an image processing apparatus that restricts the use of a function on a user, (paragraph 5, Suwabe); and (b) to improve convenience of a usage request from a device in which authentication information cannot be input while activating a user authentication function as taught by Takarabe at paragraph 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US PG Pub 2013/0222834 to Hosoi discloses image processing restriction information that defines time of day restrictions of a first function and time of day restrictions of a second function is stored in a memory unit. An image processing request for image processing of one of the first and second functions is received. Based on time managed by a time management unit, a time of the image processing request and the image processing restriction information, an image processing restriction corresponding to the first function or the second function is determined based on the received image processing request for image processing of the corresponding function. An image processing restriction is performed based on the determining of the image processing restriction corresponding to the first function and the determining of the image processing restriction corresponding to the second function.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D. WAIT, Esq. whose telephone number is (571)270-5976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30- 6:00.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 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.
CHRISTOPHER D. WAIT, Esq.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/CHRISTOPHER WAIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights