DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is an initial office action in response to communication(s) filed on September 6, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 6, 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3, 5, 8-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomida (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0295248 A1().
With regard to claim 1, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing computer-readable instructions for a control device comprising a processor (see Tomida, i.e. in fig. 1, para. 32 and etc., disclose the mobile terminal 10A, comprises a controller 13; also, in fig. 2, CPU 31)
wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the processor (see Tomida, i.e. in fig. 1, controller 13, fig. 2, CPU 31 and etc.), cause the control device to:
in a case where a function executing device is in a non-accepting state in which the function executing device is not capable of accepting an authentication operation, display notification information regarding to the non-accepting state on a display of a terminal device before displaying an instruction screen for prompting a user to execute the authentication operation on the display (see Tomida, i.e. in fig. 3, step S40, para. 65, discloses that “[0065] In step S40, the CPU 31 determines whether the model of the image forming device 20A determined in step S30 is a model capable of providing the service using the activated application, that is, a model compatible with the application. The activated application includes information on models compatible with the application in advance. Thus, the CPU 31 may compare the information on the compatible models included in the application with the model of the image forming device 20A determined in step S30 to determine whether the model of the image forming device 20A is compatible with the application”; and further in step S70 of fig. 2, para. 75-78, fig. 6 and etc., disclose that “[0075] On the other hand, when it is determined in the determination process of step S40 that the model of the image forming device 20A is not compatible with the application, the process proceeds to step S70. [0076] In step S70, the CPU 31 displays an error screen 15 on the UI unit 38 of the mobile terminal 10A in order to notify the user that the service that the user wants to use on the image forming device 20A installed in the shop which he/she entered is unavailable from the mobile terminal 10A owned by the user….”).
With regard to claim 2, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the notification information includes information indicating that the function executing device is in the non-accepting state (see Tomida, i.e. in fig. 6, para. 7 7 and etc., disclose that “[0077] FIG. 6 shows an example of the error screen 15. The error screen 15 displays, for example, a message notifying the user that the model of the image forming device 20A is not compatible with the application.”).
With regard to claim 3, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the notification information includes information for changing a state of the function executing device from the non-accepting state to an accepting state in which the function executing device is capable of accepting the authentication operation (see Tomida, i.e. in fig. 6, the error screen 15 include the section of “how to solve” instructions).
With regard to claim 5, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the control device to: in a case where the function executing device is in an accepting state in which the function executing device is capable of accepting the authentication operation, display the instruction screen on the display without displaying the notification information on the display (see Tomida, i.e. in fig. 3, steps S40, S50, para. 67-68 and etc., disclose that “[0067] In step S50, the CPU 31 activates the execution function associated with the model of the image forming device 20A. [0068] For example, when the execution function is implemented by another application (referred to as a “child application”) called from the application whose activation state has bee 3n determined in the determination process of step S20, the CPU 31 activates a child application associated with the model of the image forming device 20A from among plural child applications that implement the execution function….”).
With regard to claim 8, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the non-accepting state includes a state in which the function executing device is executing a specific function (see Tomida, i.e. in fig. 3, step S20, S50, para. 62 and etc., disclose that “[0062] In step S20, the CPU 31 determines whether the user has activated an application for using the service of the image forming device 20A (hereinafter, simply referred to as an “application”). When the application has not been activated, the CPU 31 repeatedly executes the determination process of step S20 to monitor an activation state of the application. On the other hand, when the application has been activated, the process proceeds to step S30…”).
With regard to claim 9, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the non-accepting state includes a state in which a user is operating an operation unit of the function executing device (see Tomida, i.e. i.e. para. 72 and etc., discloses that “[0072] Since the mobile terminal 10A has the execution function associated with the model of the image forming device 20A, the CPU 31 displays the connection screen 14 for connecting to the image forming device 20A as shown in FIG. 5. When the user selects “CONNECT”, the CPU 31 controls the communication unit 37 to connect to the image forming device 20A through the wireless line 4…”).
With regard to claim 10, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the non-accepting state includes a state in which communication between the function executing device and a server is inexecutable (see Tomida, i.e. in fig. 6, illustration the error information includes “communication is not possible…”).
With regard to claim 11, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the control device is a controller of the terminal device, and the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the control device to:
accept a specific operation which is to be executed before the authentication operation (see Tomida, i.e. in fig. 3, step S20, para. 62 and etc., disclose that “[0062] In step S20, the CPU 31 determines whether the user has activated an application for using the service of the image forming device 20A (hereinafter, simply referred to as an “application”). When the application has not been activated, the CPU 31 repeatedly executes the determination process of step S20 to monitor an activation state of the application. On the other hand, when the application has been deactivated, the process proceeds to step S30…”),
wherein in a case where the specific operation is accepted and the function executing device is in the non-accepting state, the notification information is displayed on the display before displaying the instruction screen on the display (Tomida, i.e. fig. 3, step S30, S40, S70, para. 64 and etc. disclose that “[0064] In step S30, the CPU 31 refers to the RAM 33 and determines the model of the image forming device 20A that the user is about to use (hereinafter, simply referred to as the “image forming apparatus 20A”) based on the model information on the image forming device 20A indicated by the beacon packet 9….”).
With regard to claim 19, the claim is drawn to a control device (see Tomida, i.e. in fig. 1, para. 32 and etc., disclose the mobile terminal 10A, comprises a controller 13; also, in fig. 2, CPU 31) comprising:
a display (see Tomida, i.e. in fig. 2, para. 71 and etc., disclose the UI unit 38); and
a controller (see Tomida, i.e. in fig. 1, disclose the controller 13) configured to:
in a case where a function executing device is in a non-accepting state in which the function executing device is not capable of accepting an authentication operation, display notification information regarding the non-accepting state on a display of terminal device before displaying an instruction screen for prompting a user to execute the authentication operation on the display (see Tomida, i.e. in fig. 3, step S40, para. 65, discloses that “[0065] In step S40, the CPU 31 determines whether the model of the image forming device 20A determined in step S30 is a model capable of providing the service using the activated application, that is, a model compatible with the application. The activated application includes information on models compatible with the application in advance. Thus, the CPU 31 may compare the information on the compatible models included in the application with the model of the image forming device 20A determined in step S30 to determine whether the model of the image forming device 20A is compatible with the application”; and further in step S70 of fig. 2, para. 75-78, fig. 6 and etc., disclose that “[0075] On the other hand, when it is determined in the determination process of step S40 that the model of the image forming device 20A is not compatible with the application, the process proceeds to step S70. [0076] In step S70, the CPU 31 displays an error screen 15 on the UI unit 38 of the mobile terminal 10A in order to notify the user that the service that the user wants to use on the image forming device 20A installed in the shop which he/she entered is unavailable from the mobile terminal 10A owned by the user….”).
With regard to claim 20, the claim is drawn to a method for controlling a control device (see Tomida, i.e. fig. 3 and etc.), the method comprising:
in a case where a function executing device is in a non-accepting state in which the function executing device is not capable of accepting an authentication operation, displaying notification information regarding the non-accepting state on a display of a terminal device before displaying an instruction screen for prompting a user to execute the authentication operation on the display (see Tomida, i.e. in fig. 3, step S40, para. 65, discloses that “[0065] In step S40, the CPU 31 determines whether the model of the image forming device 20A determined in step S30 is a model capable of providing the service using the activated application, that is, a model compatible with the application. The activated application includes information on models compatible with the application in advance. Thus, the CPU 31 may compare the information on the compatible models included in the application with the model of the image forming device 20A determined in step S30 to determine whether the model of the image forming device 20A is compatible with the application”; and further in step S70 of fig. 2, para. 75-78, fig. 6 and etc., disclose that “[0075] On the other hand, when it is determined in the determination process of step S40 that the model of the image forming device 20A is not compatible with the application, the process proceeds to step S70. [0076] In step S70, the CPU 31 displays an error screen 15 on the UI unit 38 of the mobile terminal 10A in order to notify the user that the service that the user wants to use on the image forming device 20A installed in the shop which he/she entered is unavailable from the mobile terminal 10A owned by the user….”).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kadota (U.S Pub. No. 2012/0081744 A1).
With regard to claim 4, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the control device to: determine whether the function executing device is in the non-accepting state or an accepting state in which the function executing device is capable of accepting the authentication operation, wherein in a case where it is determined that the function executing device is in the non-accepting state, the notification information and a retry object are displayed on the display before displaying the instruction screen on the display, and in a case where an operation on the retry object is accepted, whether the function executing device is in the non-accepting state or the accepting state is re-determined.
The teachings of Tomida do not explicitly disclose the aspect(s) relating to “wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the control device to: determine whether the function executing device is in the non-accepting state or an accepting state in which the function executing device is capable of accepting the authentication operation, wherein in a case where it is determined that the function executing device is in the non-accepting state, the notification information and a retry object are displayed on the display before displaying the instruction screen on the display, and in a case where an operation on the retry object is accepted, whether the function executing device is in the non-accepting state or the accepting state is re-determined”.
However, Kadota discloses an analogous invention relates to a technique of operating, from a client terminal, a peripheral device connected to a network. More specifically, in Kadota, i.e. in Fig. 7, steps 108, S110, para. 83 and etc., , disclose that, “…. wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the control device to: determine whether the function executing device is in the non-accepting state or an accepting state in which the function executing device is capable of accepting the authentication operation (see Kadota, i.e. in fig. 7, step S108, S110, para. 83 and etc., disclose that “[0083] If the CPU 12 determines that the power of the printer 50 is in an OFF state (YES in S110), the CPU 12 may display information indicating that the power of the printer 50 is in an OFF state on the display unit, so as to cause the user to turn on the power of the printer 50. Also, the CPU 12 may suspend transmission, to the printer 50, of a request for permission to generate print data until the power of the printer 50 has been turned on (S116). At this time, CPU 12 may also suspend transmission, to the server apparatus 30, of a request to generate print data. If a print job is input by the user during the suspension of transmission of a request for permission to generate print data, the CPU 12 may display an error screen on the display unit...”), wherein in a case where it is determined that the function executing device is in the non-accepting state, the notification information and a retry object are displayed on the display before displaying the instruction screen on the display, and in a case where an operation on the retry object is accepted, whether the function executing device is in the non-accepting state or the accepting state is re-determined (see Kadota, i.e. in para. 122-123 and etc., disclose that “[0122] The PC 10, the server apparatus 30, and the printer 50 may be normally set to the same time, but a slight time lag may occur among them. Also, since the CPU 32 of the server apparatus 30 receives pieces of encrypted information X generated by the PC 10 and the printer 50 through the communication line 80, a time lag may occur between the time when the PC 10 and the printer 50 generate these pieces of encrypted information X and the time when the server apparatus 30 receives these pieces of encrypted information X. [0123] For this reason, 5138 and 5140 are separately illustrated in FIG. 10 for convenience. However, if it is determined in S140 that the first decrypted information H1 and the second decrypted information H2 information do not match each other, a retry process may be performed in which decryption at a certain past time is performed and re-comparison is performed on the past time decrypted information. The decryption scheme for decrypting the above-described first and second encrypted information may be a private scheme…” .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tomida to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Kadota, with the aspect(s) discussed above, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to print management arts. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tomida by the teachings of Kadota, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Kadota, thereby to “… reducing the processing load on the server apparatus” (see Kadota, i.e. para. 12 and etc.).
With regard to claim 6, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the control device to: display the instruction screen on the display in a case where a state of the function executing device is changed from the non-accepting state to an accepting state in which the function executing device is capable of accepting the authentication operation after the notification information has been displayed on the display (see Kadota, i.e. para. 83 and etc., disclose that “[0083] If the CPU 12 determines that the power of the printer 50 is in an OFF state (YES in S110), the CPU 12 may display information indicating that the power of the printer 50 is in an OFF state on the display unit, so as to cause the user to turn on the power of the printer 50. Also, the CPU 12 may suspend transmission, to the printer 50, of a request for permission to generate print data until the power of the printer 50 has been turned on (S116). At this time, CPU 12 may also suspend transmission, to the server apparatus 30, of a request to generate print data. If a print job is input by the user during the suspension of transmission of a request for permission to generate print data, the CPU 12 may display an error screen on the display unit…”).
With regard to claim 7, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the non-accepting state includes a state in which the function executing device is offline (see Kadota, i.e. in fig. 7, step S100, para. 83 and etc., disclose that “[0083] If the CPU 12 determines that the power of the printer 50 is in an OFF state (YES in S110), the CPU 12 may display information indicating that the power of the printer 50 is in an OFF state on the display unit, so as to cause the user to turn on the power of the printer 50. Also, the CPU 12 may suspend transmission, to the printer 50, of a request for permission to generate print data until the power of the printer 50 has been turned on (S116). At this time, CPU 12 may also suspend transmission, to the server apparatus 30, of a request to generate print data. If a print job is input by the user during the suspension of transmission of a request for permission to generate print data, the CPU 12 may display an error screen on the display unit…”).
With regard to claim 17, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the control device is a controller of the terminal device (see Tomida, i.e. in fig. 1 and etc.), and
the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the processor (see Tomida, i.e. in fig. 1, 2, CPU 31 and etc.), further cause the control device to:
send, to the function executing device, a status information request requesting status information indicating a status of the function executing device to be sent;
in response to the status information request being sent to the function executing device, receive the status information from the function executing device (see Kadota, i.e. in para. 80 and etc., disclose that “[0080] As described above, the CPU 52 of the printer 50 may transmit the status of the printing unit 58 and the status of the print queue to the PCs 10. The CPU 12 of each of the PCs 10 may function as the monitoring unit 24 in the abnormality monitoring process and may display the status of the printer 50 on a display unit (not illustrated). The CPU 12 of the PC 10 may receive the foregoing status while the status of the printer 50 is displayed (S102 and S104) and may, accordingly, update the status display (S106).”); and
in a case where the status information is received from the function executing device, determine, by using the status information, whether the function executing device is in the non-accepting state or an accepting state in which the function executing device is capable of accepting the authentication operation (see Kadota, i.e. in fig. 7, step S102 and etc.),
wherein in a case where it is determined that the function executing device is in the non-accepting state, the notification information is displayed on the display before displaying the instruction screen on the display (see Kadota, i.e. in fig. 7, step S106, S116 and etc.).
With regard to claim 18, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the control device is a controller of the terminal device, and the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the control device to: send, to the function executing device, a determination request requesting the function executing device to determine whether the function executing device is in the non-accepting state or an accepting state in which the function executing device is capable of accepting the authentication operation; and in response to the determination request being sent to the function executing device, receive result information indicating a determination result from the function executing device, wherein in a case where the result information indicates that the function executing device is in the non-accepting state, the notification information is displayed on the display before displaying the instruction screen on the display (see Kadota, i.e. in fig. 7, step S102, S106, S110, S116, para. 80 and etc., disclose that “[0080] As described above, the CPU 52 of the printer 50 may transmit the status of the printing unit 58 and the status of the print queue to the PCs 10. The CPU 12 of each of the PCs 10 may function as the monitoring unit 24 in the abnormality monitoring process and may display the status of the printer 50 on a display unit (not illustrated). The CPU 12 of the PC 10 may receive the foregoing status while the status of the printer 50 is displayed (S102 and S104) and may, accordingly, update the status display (S106)…”).
Allowable Subject Matter
With regard to Claim 12-16, claims are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcoming the corresponding rejections and/or objection (if any) set forth in the Office Action above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 12, the closest prior arts of record, Tomida and Kadota, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 11, wherein the specific operation is for selecting the function executing device, wherein the function executing device is configured to, in a case where the authentication operation is accepted after the instruction screen has been displayed on the display, send device identification information identifying the function executing device to a server that provides a service related to the function executing device, and the server is configured to store the device identification information in a case where the device identification information is received from the function executing device”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior art of record.
With regard to claims 13-14, the claims are depending directly or indirectly from the independent Claim 12, each encompasses the required limitations recited in the independent claim discussed above.
With regard to claim 15, the closest prior arts of record, Tomida and Kadota, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 11, wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the control device to: in a case where the specific operation is accepted and the function executing device is in an accepting state in which the function executing device is capable of accepting the authentication operation, send a maintaining request to the function executing device, the maintaining request requesting the function executing device to maintain the accepting state over a predetermined time period”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior art of record.
With regard to claim 16, the closest prior arts of record, Tomida and Kadota, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 11, wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the control device to: in a case where the specific operation is accepted, send operation information indicating that the specific operation has been accepted to the function executing device, wherein the function executing device is configured to maintain the accepting state over a predetermined time period in a case where the operation information is received under an accepting state in which the function executing device is capable of accepting the authentication operation”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior art of record.
Therefore, claims 12-16 are objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nuggehalli (U.S. Pat/Pub No. 2008/0259380 A1) disclose an invention relates to one of the problems with conventional locked printing approaches is that a user must enter the authentication data using the user interface provided on the printing device. User interfaces on printing devices often include only a simple operation panel with a limited number of status indicators and function buttons. For example, a typical operation panel may include status lights that indicate whether a printing device is in a "ready" state, requires attention or is in an error state, which lacks in explicitly disclosing the displaying of notification information on the terminal device instead.
The Art Unit (or Workgroup) location of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2681.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacky X. Zheng whose telephone number is (571) 270-1122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, alt. Friday Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 272-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACKY X ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights