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 INTERPRETATION
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations reciting “an operation unit”, “a reception unit”, “a detection unit” and “a transmission unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 2, 4, 5 and 15 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
the “an operation unit”, The operation unit 205 is a device for the user to perform an input operation and forms a touch panel sheet or hardware keys. See paragraph [0039].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a reception unit”, “a detection unit” and “a transmission unit”, there is no adequate description about the units.
Dependent claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same reason as set forth above.
3. 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.
4. Claim 1 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements “a reception unit” and “a transmission unit” are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
The terms “a reception unit”, “a detection unit” and “a transmission unit” are unclear.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reason as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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) 1-2 and 7-8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeda (US 20220236933 ).
Regarding claim 1, Takeda teaches an image processing apparatus comprising:
an operation unit configured to set authentication information used to operate the image processing apparatus (p0009: remote user interface (UI) function and an image processing function and that allows a user to use the plurality of functions upon accepting remote access from a terminal includes an authentication..);
a reception unit configured to receive, from an information processing apparatus, a request for a web page provided by the image processing apparatus (p0025:A user can use the remote UI of the MFP 101 by accessing the MFP 101 from a web browser of the PC terminal); and
a transmission unit configured to transmit the web page to the information processing apparatus (p0067:The remote UI 302 displays a menu screen 803 for allowing the user to use the function of the MFP 101 provided by the remote UI 302 and ends the login processing),
wherein in response to receiving the request, transmitting a web page including code information to the information processing apparatus in accordance with authentication information that satisfies a predetermined condition and that is used for authentication for displaying a web page including information of the image processing apparatus on the information processing apparatus (p0068:the remote UI 302 generates a QR code including a TOTP secret),
wherein, the displayed code information is displayed on a mobile terminal to provide operations required to set the authentication information by the operation unit of the image processing apparatus (804 in fig. 8: QR code).
Regarding claim 2, Takeda teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition is that the authentication information used for the authentication for displaying the web page is not set (p0064-p0068:in a case where the remote UI 302 determines that the TOTP secret is not registered and the one-time password is not enabled.. fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Takeda teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the web page enables changing a setting of the image processing apparatus (p0033: so that the user can change settings of the MFP 101).
Regarding claim 9, Takeda teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the web page further includes information prompting setting of the authentication information(p0042:Changing a setting in Table 2 signifies changing a value set in the MFP 101 such as about a user authentication setting).
Regarding claim 8, Takeda teaches The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the web page enables changing a setting of the authentication information of the image processing apparatus (p0042:Changing a setting in Table 2 signifies changing a value set in the MFP 101 such as about a user authentication setting).
Regarding claim 10, Takeda teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the code information is a QR CODE (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, Takeda teaches the structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 11. Thus, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Takeda’s further teaching on: A computer-readable memory that contains instructions, which when executed by a processor perform steps in a method (p0062).
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 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiba (US 20220131993).
Regarding claim 3, Takeda does not explicitly disclose the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition is that the authentication information used for the authentication for displaying the web page is set as an initial value.
Chiba teaches wherein the predetermined condition is that the authentication information used for the authentication for displaying the web page is set as an initial value (p0062: the initial password is changed to the second password in advance in the image forming apparatus 100).
Takeda and Chiba are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. 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 Takeda with the teaching of Chiba for purpose of change setting of the image forming apparatus remotely (p0003).
Regarding claim 4, Takeda in view of Chiba teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition is that the authentication information used for the authentication for displaying the web page has not been changed for a predetermined period (Chiba: p0072:default value (initial password).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporate herein.
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alexander (US 8095534).
Regarding claim 5, Takeda does not teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in response to receiving the request that includes authentication information that satisfies the predetermined condition and that indicates a screen size of a display of the information processing apparatus is smaller than a predetermined size, transmitting, to the information processing apparatus, a web page not including the code information, and wherein in response to receiving the request that includes authentication information that satisfies the predetermined condition and that indicates the screen size of the display of the information processing apparatus is equal to or greater than a predetermined size, transmitting, to the information processing apparatus, the web page including the code information.
Alexander teaches wherein in response to receiving the request that includes authentication information that satisfies the predetermined condition and that indicates a screen size of a display of the information processing apparatus is smaller than a predetermined size, transmitting, to the information processing apparatus, a web page not including the code information, and wherein in response to receiving the request that includes authentication information that satisfies the predetermined condition and that indicates the screen size of the display of the information processing apparatus is equal to or greater than a predetermined size, transmitting, to the information processing apparatus, the web page including the code information (col. 10, lines 60-65: a page appropriate for a smaller or larger screen size can be responsively selected. And 586: in fig. 24: select page based on screen size. ).
Takeda and Alexander are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. 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 Takeda with the teaching of Alexander’s display page based on the screen size, for purpose of change setting of the image forming apparatus remotely (p0003).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hosoda (US 20220239799).
Regarding claim 6, Takeda does not teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a detection unit configured to detect an error, wherein the transmission unit transmits the web page including the code information to the information processing apparatus in accordance with the error being detected and in accordance with a type of the error being a type requiring operation performed by using the operation unit of the image processing apparatus, and wherein the transmission unit transmits a web page not including the code information to the information processing apparatus in accordance with the error being detected and in accordance with the type of the error being a type not requiring the operation performed by using the operation unit of the image processing apparatus.
Hosoda teaches a detection unit configured to detect an error (p0038:the remote UI 302 by which a user operation is detected.), wherein the transmission unit transmits the web page including the code information to the information processing apparatus in accordance with the error being detected and in accordance with a type of the error being a type requiring operation performed by using the operation unit of the image processing apparatus (fig. 8: 804), and wherein the transmission unit transmits a web page not including the code information to the information processing apparatus in accordance with the error being detected and in accordance with the type of the error being a type not requiring the operation performed by using the operation unit of the image processing apparatus (fig. 8: 805).
Takeda and Hodosa are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. 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 Takeda with the teaching of Hodosa for purpose of establishing an authentication factor for a remote access user that is different from an authentication factor employed in multi-factor authentication of local access (p0007).
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
Prosecution Insights