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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter without reciting significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 1–20 are drawn to a method, an apparatus, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Accordingly, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter. See 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong One: Whether the Claims Are Directed to a Judicial Exception
The claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting information about a communication apparatus, determining whether authentication is required based on model information, performing authentication-related processing, and transmitting a job to the communication apparatus.
More particularly, claim 1 recites, in substance:
checking information on an apparatus model of a communication apparatus;
determining whether predetermined authentication is necessary based on whether the apparatus model corresponds to a first apparatus model;
executing authentication processing when authentication is necessary;
executing authentication processing irrespective of necessity when the apparatus model corresponds to a second apparatus model; and
transmitting the job to the communication apparatus.
These limitations amount to information gathering, evaluating information according to rules, deciding whether to perform authentication, and transmitting a result. Such activity is a familiar type of abstract idea. The remaining claims recite variations of the same concept, including obtaining authentication-necessary information, displaying input screens, notifying failure, and storing authentication information after success.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to at least one judicial exception, namely an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Whether the Claims Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception.
The claims recite generic computer implementation, including:
an information processing apparatus,
execution units,
a transmission unit,
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,
checking, determining, executing, and transmitting operations.
The claimed steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely instruct a generic computer to perform conventional data-processing functions in the context of job transmission to a communication apparatus. The claims do not recite:
a particular improvement to computer functionality,
a particular improvement to network functionality,
a specific asserted improvement in the operation of the claimed computer components,
a transformation of an article,
or any other meaningful limitation beyond applying the abstract idea in a computerized environment.
The recited use of apparatus model information to determine whether authentication is needed is merely a field-of-use or data-dependent rule for carrying out the abstract idea and does not, by itself, amount to a practical application. Likewise, the recited display screens, user notifications, retry operations, and storage of authentication information are conventional computer functions that do not impose meaningful limits on the exception.
Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Whether the Claims Recite an Inventive Concept
Individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claims recite only generic computer components performing well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, including:
checking model information,
determining whether authentication is needed,
transmitting authentication information,
displaying an input screen,
notifying the user of authentication failure,
saving authentication information,
and transmitting a job.
These are ordinary computer implementation steps that do not amount to an inventive concept. The claims do not require any unconventional computer architecture, specialized hardware, or other technological improvement. Rather, they merely automate a manual decision process regarding when authentication should be performed for a job transmission.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional claim elements merely recite a sequence of conventional steps that apply the abstract idea using generic components. The claims therefore fail to add significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter without reciting significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 1-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0036191) in view of Nagasawa et al. (US Patent No. 9727809).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki et al. teach a control method of an information processing apparatus, comprising
checking information on an apparatus model of a communication apparatus that is a transmission destination of a job (model of printer that will receive a print job, paragraph [0037] and [0053]);
determining whether or not predetermined authentication relating to the job to be transmitted to the communication apparatus is necessary for the communication apparatus, based on a case where the information on the apparatus model of the communication apparatus is checked to be information corresponding to a first apparatus model;
executing processing for the predetermined authentication based on a case where the predetermined authentication is determined to be necessary for the communication apparatus;
executing the processing for the predetermined authentication irrespective of whether or not the predetermined authentication is necessary for the communication apparatus, based on a case where the information on the apparatus model of the communication apparatus is checked to be information corresponding to a second apparatus model different from the first apparatus model (paragraph [0057]); and
transmitting the job to the communication apparatus (paragraph [0093]).
Suzuki et al. fail to teach determining whether or not predetermined authentication relating to the job to be transmitted to the communication apparatus is necessary for the communication apparatus, based on a case where the information on the apparatus model of the communication apparatus is checked to be information corresponding to a first apparatus model;
executing processing for the predetermined authentication based on a case where the predetermined authentication is determined to be necessary for the communication apparatus.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nagasawa et al. teach a mobile terminal operated in cooperation with an information processing device capable of setting an authentication mode relating to user authentication to one mode selected from two kinds of modes of an authentication request mode requiring the user authentication, and a non-authentication request mode not requiring the user authentication, the mobile terminal including: a display unit configured to display a confirmation message inquiring a user of the mobile terminal whether to perform authentication operation; and a control unit configured to control display operation for displaying the confirmation message, acquiring, from the information processing device, authentication mode information being information representing whether the authentication mode is the authentication request mode or the non-authentication request mode, and displaying the confirmation message on the display unit, on condition that the authentication mode information is acquired, the authentication mode information representing that the authentication mode is the authentication request mode (Abstract, column 2, lines 29-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made, to modify the method disclosed by Suzuki et al. to include the feature that the system to determine if an authentication is necessary as taught by Nagasawa et al. in order reduce unnecessary user interaction and to tailor authentication behavior to the capabilities or configuration of different apparatus models. The combination would have predictably resulted in a terminal that checks model information for a communication apparatus, determines whether authentication is required based on that information, performs authentication processing when required, and transmits the job to the communication apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki et al. fail to teach the control method according to claim 1, further comprising obtaining authentication necessary-unnecessary information from the communication apparatus, the authentication necessary-unnecessary information indicating whether or not the predetermined authentication relating to the job to be transmitted to the communication apparatus is necessary for the communication apparatus, wherein the determining whether or not the predetermined authentication relating to the job to be transmitted to the communication apparatus is necessary for the communication apparatus is executed based on the authentication necessary-unnecessary information. However, Nagasawa et al. teach these features (see Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the authentication-mode based control of Nagasawa et al. with the model-based device handling of Suzuki et al. in order to reduce unnecessary user interaction and to tailor authentication behavior to the capabilities or configuration of different apparatus models. The combination would have predictably resulted in a terminal that checks model information for a communication apparatus, determines whether authentication is required based on that information, performs authentication processing when required, and transmits the job to the communication apparatus.
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki et al. in view of Nagasawa et al. further teach the control method according to claim 2, wherein the authentication necessary-unnecessary information is obtained based on the case where the information on the apparatus model of the communication apparatus is checked to be the information corresponding to the first apparatus model (The cited references teach obtaining and using authentication-related information based on device-specific conditions, including apparatus-model-specific information. In particular, the model-specific references support the concept that the communication apparatus may be identified as corresponding to a particular apparatus model (Suzuki et al. paragraph [0097]), and the authentication-mode reference supports using that determination to control whether authentication is necessary (Nagasawa et al., Abstract). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references because using apparatus-model information to determine authentication requirements would have been a predictable and routine way to tailor access control to different device models, reduce unnecessary authentication prompts, and improve system usability.
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki et al. in view of Nagasawa et al. further teach the control method according to claim 2, wherein the authentication necessary-unnecessary information is not obtained in the case where the information on the apparatus model of the communication apparatus is checked to be the information corresponding to the second apparatus model (Nagasawa et al. teach authentication-dependent control (Abstract), and Suzuki et al. teach apparatus-model-dependent device behavior (paragraph [0112]). Accordingly, it would have been understood that authentication necessary-unnecessary information need not be obtained when the communication apparatus is determined to correspond to a second apparatus model. The authentication reference teaches when authentication-related processing should occur, while the model-specific references teach that device behavior may vary depending on the detected apparatus model. It would have been a predictable and routine design choice to omit obtaining authentication necessary-unnecessary information for a second apparatus model if that model was known to operate under different conditions or did not require the same authentication determination. This would reduce unnecessary processing, simplify control logic, and improve device efficiency and usability.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki et al. in view of Nagasawa et al. further teach the control method according to claim 2, wherein
the communication apparatus that is the first apparatus model is an apparatus of an apparatus model that is capable of allowing the information processing apparatus to obtain the authentication necessary-unnecessary information (Suzuki et al. teach that apparatus behavior and available functions vary by model; combined with Nagasawa et al., this supports a model that can provide authentication-necessity information.), and
the communication apparatus that is the second apparatus model is an apparatus of an apparatus model that is not capable of allowing the information processing apparatus to obtain the authentication necessary-unnecessary information (Suzuki et al. support the concept of a second model with different capabilities, which can exclude the ability to provide authentication-necessity information).
Nagasawa et al. teach authentication-necessary/unnecessary control, and Suzuki et al. teach that apparatus behavior and capabilities vary by model. Accordingly, it would have been understood that a first apparatus model may be capable of allowing the information processing apparatus to obtain authentication necessary-unnecessary information, while a second apparatus model may lack that capability. Such model-dependent branching would have been a predictable way to align authentication handling with the actual features of each apparatus model.
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki et al. in view of Nagasawa et al. teach the control method according to claim 1, wherein the processing for the predetermined authentication includes processing of transmitting authentication information to the communication apparatus, the authentication information saved in a region managed by a predetermined application program that executes the processing for the predetermined authentication (Nagasawa et al. teach transmitting user authentication information to the MFP and the registration data table 400 maintained by the authentication application, see Fig. 7, S35 and S45; and Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki et al. in view of Nagasawa et al. teach the control method according to claim 6, wherein the processing for the predetermined authentication includes processing of transmitting predetermined authentication information to the communication apparatus even in a case where the authentication information saved in the region managed by the predetermined application program is absent (Nagasawa et al. teach transmitting authentication information to the communication apparatus even when authentication information stored in the application-managed registration data table is absent, because the mobile terminal prompts the user to input authentication information and then transmits the entered information to the MFP. See Fig. 13 where finds no stored registration data, obtains credentials from the user and transmits them to the MFP).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki et al. in view of Nagasawa et al. teach the control method according to claim 7, further comprising:
displaying an input screen that receives input of the authentication information from a user in a case where the predetermined authentication fails as a result of transmission of the predetermined authentication information to the communication apparatus in a state where the predetermined authentication is necessary for the communication apparatus (Nagasawa et al. teach the mobile terminal determines that the user authentication information corresponding to the cooperation device is not registered. The mobile terminal displays a confirmation message stating that authentication information has not been registered and asks whether the user wants to log in after registering authentication information, see column 15, lines 3-36); and
executing the processing for the predetermined authentication again by using the authentication information inputted in the input screen (column 15, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki et al. in view of Nagasawa et al. further teach the control method according to claim 8, further comprising notifying the user of failure of the predetermined authentication in a case where the predetermined authentication fails despite execution of the processing for the predetermined authentication performed by using the authentication information inputted in the input screen (Nagasawa et al. teach failure handling when authentication is not successful and continued restriction of device use, see column 14, lines 33-38).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki et al. in view of Nagasawa et al. further teach the control method according to claim 8, further comprising saving the authentication information inputted in the input screen in the region managed by the predetermined application program in a case where the predetermined authentication is successful as a result of execution of the processing for the predetermined authentication performed by using the authentication information inputted in the input screen (Nagasawa et al. teach registering the entered authentication information in the registration data table after user input and successful execution, see column 15, lines 60-65)
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki et al. in view of Nagasawa et al. further teach the control method according to claim 1, wherein, in the case where the information on the apparatus model of the communication apparatus is the information corresponding to the second apparatus model and the predetermined authentication is unnecessary for the communication apparatus, the predetermined authentication is successful regardless of which authentication information is transmitted to the communication apparatus in the processing for the predetermined authentication (Nagasawa et al. teach that when the device is in non-authentication request mode, authentication is unnecessary and the terminal suppresses the authentication prompt, see column 13, lines 3-15. However, it does not expressly teach that authentication succeeds regardless of transmitted authentication information. It is noted that because authentication is unnecessary, it doesn’t matter if there is a transmitted authentication information or not).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki et el. In view of Nagasawa et al. further teach the control method according to claim 1, wherein the job is transmitted to the communication apparatus based on success of the predetermined authentication (see Suzuki et al. Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki et al. teach model-specific printer/device information and job handling, which supports the proposition that different apparatus models may be handled differently in a communication or printing workflow (see paragraph [0116]. However, it does not appear to expressly teach authentication-screen display or suppression. Nagasawa et al. teach that when the MFP is in non-authentication request mode, the confirmation message is not displayed, whereas when authentication is required and authentication information is not registered, the mobile terminal displays an authentication information input screen and transmits the entered information for authentication (see column 19, lines 48-61). The display is used or not are taught by both Suzuki et al and Nagasawa et al. The input screen is not displayed for a first model and input screen is displayed for a second model is actually a design choice to skill person in the art. The combination would have predictably improved flexibility and reduced unnecessary processing by tailoring authentication behavior to the particular apparatus model.
Regarding claim 14, Nagasawa et al. further teach the control method according to claim 13, further comprising notifying the user of the failure of the predetermined authentication based on the failure of the predetermined authentication as a result of the processing for the predetermined authentication executed in the case where the information on the apparatus model of the communication apparatus is checked to be the information corresponding to the first apparatus model (column 18, lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki et al. further teach the control method according to claim 1, wherein the information on the apparatus model of the communication apparatus is information indicating a platform of a firm controller of the communication apparatus (Suzuki et al. teach use of apparatus-model-specific information to control device or job handling, which supports the concept that information on the apparatus model may identify a platform or controller type associated with the communication apparatus, see paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki et al. further teach the control method according to claim 1, wherein the first apparatus model and the second apparatus model vary in at least one of a platform of a firm controller of the communication apparatus, a sheet size handleable by the communication apparatus, a function usable by the communication apparatus, and an application program interface (API) held by the communication apparatus (Suzuki et al. teach use of apparatus-model-specific information to control device or print handling, which supports the concept that different apparatus models may vary in platform, supported functions, and other capabilities. To the extent the claim recites variation in sheet size, usable functions, or API-related capabilities, such limitations are supported by the model-dependent capability distinctions disclosed in the model-specific references, see Fig. 1, #34)).
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki et al. in view of Nagasawa et al. further teach the control method according to claim 1, wherein the job is at least one of a scan job, a FAX job, and a print job (see Nagasawa Fig. 17).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the limitations of the claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. in view of Nagasawa as applied to claims 1-17 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Koshigaya (US PGPUB 2015/0138597).
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki et al. in view of Nagasawa et al. fail to teach the control method according to claim 1, wherein the job is a job for causing the communication apparatus to transmit an image, obtained by executing scanning with the communication apparatus, by e-mail. However, Koshigaya teaches this feature as shown in Fig. 6C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to on of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to use the email to transmit an image obtained by scanning. The combination would have involved no more than applying a known authentication control technique to a known scan-to-email job workflow, yielding the predictable benefit of controlled access without changing the underlying operation of either reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaida (US PGPUB 20150015909) teaches an image management system and image management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENNY QUOC TIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-7490. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
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.
/BENNY Q TIEU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights