DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings submitted on 09/19/2024 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “714” has been used to designate both “home button” described in ¶ [0041] of transmission screen 700 displayed in Fig. 7A, and message stating “DESTINATION COULD NOT BE REPLICATED SINCE DESTINATION THAT CANNOT BE AUTOMATICALLY REGISTERED IS INCLUDED” described in ¶ [0102] of transmission screen 700 displayed in Fig. 7C. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 2018/0217797 A1) in view of Van Bergen et al. (US 2009/0323115 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Inoue discloses an image processing apparatus, comprising at least one memory and at least one processor and/or at least one circuit (Inoue: Fig. 1 “The control unit 10 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 100, a communication unit 101, a random access memory (RAM) 102, a hard disk drive (HDD) 103, a read only memory (ROM) 104, a timer 105, and a facsimile (FAX) unit 106. The CPU 100 controls the entire control unit 10. The image processing apparatus 1 is connected to the Internet via a local area network (LAN) 11. The communication unit 101 transmits and receives data via the LAN 11. The RAM 102 provides a system work memory for the CPU 100 to operate. The HDD 103 stores programs, document data, and setting data for operating the image processing apparatus 1” ¶ [0030]) which function as:
an execution unit configured to execute a job (Inoue discloses that, at step S604, CPU 100 controls image processing unit 13 to execute the job. Inoue further provides that similar processing is performed for a transmission job, fax job, print job, or scan job. See FIG. 6, S604; ¶¶ [0083-0084]);
a second obtainment unit configured to obtain setting information corresponding to the executed job (Inoue discloses that CPU 100 stores the current settings of the job in HDD 103. Copy data table 800 records default settings 802 and current settings 803, wherein the current settings correspond to the setting values applied when the job is executed. For a transmission job, CPU 100 stores the current setting values in transmission data table 1400. Inoue further discloses at S901 that CPU 100 acquires information associated with the setting history of the executed job. See FIG. 6, S603; FIG. 8A; FIG. 8C; FIG. 9, S901; ¶¶ [0082], [0084], [0090]);
a saving unit configured to,
in a case where a destination included in the setting information (Inoue discloses at S904 that CPU 100 stores in HDD 103 the contents registered in integrated history data table 1000. Inoue explains that the data of the setting history identifies a file in which “the setting values of all the settings used by the application are stored.” See FIG. 9, S904; ¶¶ [0054], [0093]), and
in a case where at least one or more destinations included in the setting information (Inoue further discloses that the transmission application is identified by application ID “201” and treats a transmission address as a setting value. Inoue specifically discusses the case in which “the setting value of one setting item becomes long like the address of a transmission job” and identifies the number of addresses and number of multi-address transmissions as transmission setting items. See ¶¶ [0053], [0144], [0158]; FIG. 19B); and
a display control unit configured to display the job history information in a predetermined display region (Inoue discloses integrated history 509 as an area for displaying setting histories of previously executed jobs. Each setting history includes an application icon, execution date and time, and setting values. CPU 100 sorts the setting histories stored in integrated history data table 1000 and displays the histories on touch panel 200. See FIG. 5B; FIG. 12, S1208 and S1210; ¶¶ [0037], [0042-0043], [0113], [0115]).
Inoue does not expressly disclose the recited first obtainment unit configured to obtain character string information including a predetermined character string, or determining whether the destination included in the setting information corresponds to the predetermined character string.
Van Bergen discloses the recited first obtainment unit configured to obtain character string information including a predetermined character string, or determining whether the destination included in the setting information corresponds to the predetermined character string (Van Bergen discloses a scanner/MFP having a scan to email function in which the device checks a destination email address against pre-programmed criteria for allowed email addresses. Van Bergen specifically discloses evaluating the domain top level domain portion of the address, i.e., the portion following the “@” sign, and permitting only certain predetermined domain combinations. See Van Bergen, Abstract; FIG. 6, S35; claims 1-3. Van Bergen further discloses that a Key Operator or System Administrator may configure the criteria for allowing email address selection, including a predefined group based upon top level domains and domains, for example “@oce.com” and “@microsoft.com.”. Thus, Van Bergen teaches obtaining predetermined character string information comprising one or more predetermined domains and comparing the domain of a transmission destination with the predetermined domain information.).
Inoue and Van Bergen are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g.; both references are directed to image processing apparatuses, including scanner/MFP devices, which process transmission jobs having e-mail destination information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission-history processing of Inoue to include the destination-domain determination taught by Van Bergen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification in order to prevent unrestricted or unintended reuse of a transmission destination that does not satisfy a predetermined destination-security criterion, while retaining Inoue’s convenience of saving and recalling previously used job settings. Inoue itself teaches that the purpose of the integrated history is to permit settings previously used by the user to be called with a single touch and thereby eliminate the need to make the settings again. See ¶ [0121]. Van Bergen teaches restricting transmission destinations according to predetermined domain criteria in order to prevent transmission outside an allowed group. Accordingly, applying Van Bergen’s known domain determination to Inoue’s stored transmission setting would predictably identify those destinations suitable for retention and subsequent reuse and those destinations that should not be retained for reuse. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Inoue already performs software based processing and comparison of setting information before storing the setting history. Inoue specifically compares current settings 803 with stored setting history data at S902. See ¶ [0091]. Van Bergen’s domain comparison therefore represents the addition of another known comparison to destination information already contained in Inoue’s transmission settings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Van Bergen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2:
The proposed combination of Inoue in view of Van Bergen further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display control unit displays the job history information on a predetermined screen including a region in which a function that the image processing apparatus has can be selected and the predetermined display region (Inoue discloses a home screen having application buttons 501-503 for starting respective applications and custom buttons 504-506 for starting applications using previously registered setting values. Integrated history 509 is displayed on the same home screen. See FIG. 5A; ¶¶ [0037-0039], [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Van Bergen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3:
The proposed combination of Inoue in view of Van Bergen further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the job history information is selected in the predetermined display region, the display control unit displays a setting screen of a function corresponding to the job history information in a state in which setting information corresponding to the job history information is reflected (Inoue discloses that when a setting history displayed in integrated history 509 is pressed, the setting screen corresponding to the selected job is displayed with the setting values associated with the selected setting history. At S1301, CPU 100 detects selection of the setting history. At S1302, CPU 100 reads the corresponding settings from HDD 103. At S1303, CPU 100 displays the setting screen reflecting the read settings. See FIG. 13, S1301-S1303; ¶¶ [0116], [0118-0120]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Van Bergen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4:
The proposed combination of Inoue in view of Van Bergen further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a difference between a setting value of a function of executing a job corresponding to the job history information and setting information corresponding to the job history information is displayed in the predetermined display region (Inoue discloses text 513 indicating setting values of setting items that have been changed from default settings. Inoue further compares current settings with default settings to determine whether a setting item has a changed value. See FIG. 11, S1101; ¶¶ [0043], [0055], [0097], [0104], [0157-0158]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Van Bergen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5:
The proposed combination of Inoue in view of Van Bergen further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the job is executed by a scanning function (Inoue discloses that the processing is performed when a scan job is executed and further discloses image generation unit 131 scanning a document, digitizing the document image, and generating image data. See ¶¶ [0032], [0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Van Bergen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding Claim 8:
The proposed combination of Inoue in view of Van Bergen further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the character string information includes a predetermined domain (Van Bergen discloses checking the domain top level domain combination, i.e., the portion of the destination email address following the “@” sign, against predefined allowed address criteria. See Van Bergen, claim 3; FIG. 6, S35).
Inoue and Van Bergen are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g.; both references are directed to image processing apparatuses, including scanner/MFP devices, which process transmission jobs having e-mail destination information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the character string information includes a predetermined domain. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to prevent unrestricted or unintended reuse of a transmission destination that does not satisfy a predetermined destination security criterion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Van Bergen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9:
The proposed combination of Inoue in view of Van Bergen further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein it is possible to register the one or more predetermined domains (Van Bergen discloses that the Key Operator or System Administrator may configure the criteria used to determine allowable email destinations. Van Bergen expressly provides a predefined group based upon top level domains and domains, including examples such as “@oce.com” and “@microsoft.com.” Thus, Van Bergen teaches storing or registering one or more predetermined domains for use in determining whether a destination is allowable).
Inoue and Van Bergen are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g.; both references are directed to image processing apparatuses, including scanner/MFP devices, which process transmission jobs having e-mail destination information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein it is possible to register the one or more predetermined domains. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to prevent unrestricted or unintended reuse of a transmission destination that does not satisfy a predetermined destination security criterion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Van Bergen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding Claim 19: (drawn to a method)
The proposed rejection of apparatus claim 1, over Inoue in view of Van Bergen is similarly cited to reject the steps of the method of claim 19 because these steps occur in the operation of the apparatus as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 19.
12. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Van Bergen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takamiya (US 2014/0380430 A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
The proposed combination of Inoue in view of Van Bergen further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein in a case where the at least one or more destinations included in the setting information do not correspond to the predetermined character string, the saving unit saves the setting information not including all destinations including the destination not corresponding to the predetermined character string as the job history information.
Takamiya discloses wherein in a case where the at least one or more destinations included in the setting information do not correspond to the predetermined character string, the saving unit saves the setting information not including all destinations including the destination not corresponding to the predetermined character string as the job history information (Takamiya discloses a transmission setting in which at least one transmission destination is registered together with transmission/image-processing settings and teaches altering the destination portion of that transmission setting while permitting the remainder of the transmission setting to continue to be used and further teaches the security objective of restricting destinations usable under a registered transmission setting while maintaining the user’s convenience in utilizing the transmission setting. See Takamiya ¶¶ [0005-0008]).
Inoue, Van Bergen and Takamiya are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g.; each is directed to an image processing apparatus that stores or uses transmission settings including destination information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Inoue/Van Bergen apparatus so that, when destination information fails the predetermined domain criterion, the destination portion of the reusable transmission setting is excluded while the remaining job settings are retained. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to preserve the useful non-destination settings for later reuse while preventing automatic reuse of destination information determined not to satisfy the applicable security criterion. Takamiya expressly recognizes the desirability of maintaining the convenience of a stored transmission setting while separately controlling the destination information contained in that setting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue and Van Bergen with Takamiya to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
13. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Van Bergen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ozawa (US 2006/0101156 A1).
Regarding Claim 7:
The proposed combination of Inoue in view of Van Bergen further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the display control unit displays in the predetermined display region the setting information not including the destination not corresponding to the predetermined character string and a mark indicating that the destination not corresponding to the predetermined character string is not included.
Inoue and Van Bergen do not expressly disclose displaying a mark specifically indicating that a destination has been omitted as a result of the destination determination.
Ozawa discloses displaying a mark specifically indicating that a destination has been omitted as a result of the destination determination (Ozawa discloses that an address determined to be inadequate is displayed in a different manner, such as with red characters, and further displays deletion selecting screen 91 to identify the inadequate-address condition and permit deletion of that destination. See FIG. 24B; S101-S104. Ozawa further teaches that the differentiated display permits the user to readily recognize that an address differs from the predetermined limiting condition and thereby correct or delete the improper address before transmission).
Inoue, Van Bergen, and Ozawa are combinable because each reference is directed to an image processing apparatus handling electronic transmission destinations and user-visible transmission-setting information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Inoue/Van Bergen apparatus to provide an indication that destination information was omitted from the recalled or displayed setting information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide such an indication so that the user would be informed that the destination information associated with the previous job had been altered and would not incorrectly assume that the omitted destination remained part of the reusable setting information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue and Van Bergen with Ozawa to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
14. Claims 10, 11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Takamiya, and further in view of Van Bergen.
Regarding Claim 10:
Inoue discloses an image processing apparatus, comprising at least one memory and at least one processor and/or at least one circuit (Inoue: Fig. 1 “The control unit 10 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 100, a communication unit 101, a random access memory (RAM) 102, a hard disk drive (HDD) 103, a read only memory (ROM) 104, a timer 105, and a facsimile (FAX) unit 106. The CPU 100 controls the entire control unit 10. The image processing apparatus 1 is connected to the Internet via a local area network (LAN) 11. The communication unit 101 transmits and receives data via the LAN 11. The RAM 102 provides a system work memory for the CPU 100 to operate. The HDD 103 stores programs, document data, and setting data for operating the image processing apparatus 1” ¶ [0030]) which function as:
an execution unit configured to execute a job (Inoue discloses that, at step S604, CPU 100 controls image processing unit 13 to execute the job. Inoue further provides that similar processing is performed for a transmission job, fax job, print job, or scan job. See FIG. 6, S604; ¶¶ [0083-0084]);
a saving unit configured to save setting information including a destination of the executed job as job history information (Inoue discloses storing setting information corresponding to the executed job in the integrated history. The stored setting file contains the setting values used by the application, and Inoue identifies transmission address information as a transmission setting value. See ¶¶ [0054], [0093], [0144], [0158]);
a display control unit configured to display the job history information in a predetermined display region (Inoue discloses integrated history 509 as an area for displaying setting histories of previously executed jobs. Each setting history includes an application icon, execution date and time, and setting values. CPU 100 sorts the setting histories stored in integrated history data table 1000 and displays the histories on touch panel 200. See FIG. 5B; FIG. 12, S1208 and S1210; ¶¶ [0037], [0042-0043], [0113], [0115]);
a reception unit configured to receive selection of the job history information displayed in the predetermined display region (Inoue discloses detecting selection of displayed setting history at FIG. 13, S1301. See ¶ [0118]);
an obtainment unit configured to obtain character string information including a predetermined character string; and
a setting display unit (Inoue further discloses that, after selection of the setting history, CPU 100 reads the settings associated with the selected history at S1302 and displays the setting screen reflecting those settings at S1303. See ¶¶ [0119-0120]) configured to, in a case where the destination included in the setting information corresponding to the selected job history information received by the reception unit corresponds to the predetermined character string, display a setting screen of a function corresponding to the job history information that includes a destination corresponding to the predetermined character string, and
in a case where at least one or more destinations included in the setting information corresponding to the job history information do not correspond to the predetermined character string, display a setting screen of a function corresponding to the job history information that does not include a destination not corresponding to the predetermined character string.
Inoue does not expressly disclose determining, upon recall of the stored transmission setting, whether the stored destination satisfies a predetermined destination criterion and modifying the recalled destination information based upon that determination.
Takamiya discloses determining, upon recall of the stored transmission setting, whether the stored destination satisfies a predetermined destination criterion and modifying the recalled destination information based upon that determination (Takamiya teaches that, when a registered transmission setting is selected, the apparatus examines the destination or destinations contained in the transmission setting, obtains a predetermined permitted destination, determines whether the stored destination satisfies the applicable destination restriction, and alters the destination information before the transmission setting screen is used. See FIG. 4, S401-S405; ¶¶ [0005-0008]; Takamiya further teaches that when a stored transmission setting contains a destination satisfying the predetermined condition together with another destination, the satisfying destination may be left in the transmission setting while another transmission destination is deleted. See Takamiya claim 6).
Takamiya does not expressly disclose that the predetermined destination criterion is a predetermined domain character string.
Van Bergen discloses that the predetermined destination criterion is a predetermined domain character string. (Van Bergen teaches checking the domain top level domain portion of an email destination against preprogrammed criteria defining permitted domains. See Van Bergen, FIG. 6, S35; claims 1-3).
Inoue, Takamiya, and Van Bergen are combinable because all three references are directed to image processing/MFP apparatuses that process electronic transmission settings containing destination information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Inoue’s recall processing in view of Takamiya so that destination information stored in the selected job history is evaluated and altered, where appropriate, after the history is selected but before the recalled setting screen is presented for reuse. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification to preserve Inoue’s convenience of recalling previously used job settings while preventing automatic reuse of a destination that does not satisfy an applicable destination security restriction. Takamiya expressly identifies the same motivation, namely maintaining the convenience of using a registered transmission setting even where destinations usable under the transmission setting are restricted for security purposes. It would further have been obvious to use Van Bergen’s predetermined-domain comparison as the destination criterion employed in Takamiya’s destination screening operation because Van Bergen teaches domain-based restrictions as a known technique for controlling which email destinations may be used by an image processing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Takamiya and Van Bergen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11:
The proposed combination of Inoue in view of Takamiya and Van Bergen further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein in a case where the at least one or more destinations included in the setting information corresponding to the job history information do not correspond to the predetermined character string, the display control unit displays the setting information not including all destinations including the destination not corresponding to the predetermined character string.
Takamiya further teaches modifying or deleting destination information contained in a previously registered transmission setting while permitting the remaining transmission settings to continue to be used as disclosed above. Van Bergen teaches the claimed predetermined domain criterion. It would therefore have been obvious to prevent the destination information failing Van Bergen’s domain criterion from populating the recalled setting screen while retaining the remaining job-setting information for reuse. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Takamiya and Van Bergen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding Claim 15:
The proposed combination of Inoue in view of Takamiya and Van Bergen further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein a difference between a setting value of a function of executing a job corresponding to the job history information and setting information corresponding to the job history information is displayed in the predetermined display region (Inoue teaches displaying setting values that have been changed from default settings and comparing current settings against default settings to identify such differences. See FIG. 11, S1101; ¶¶ [0043], [0055], [0097], [0104], [0157-0158]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Takamiya and Van Bergen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 10.
Regarding Claim 16:
The proposed combination of Inoue in view of Takamiya and Van Bergen further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the job is executed by a scanning function (Inoue discloses execution of a scan job and further discloses image generation unit 131 scanning a document and generating image data. See ¶¶ [0032], [0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Takamiya and Van Bergen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17:
The proposed combination of Inoue in view of Takamiya and Van Bergen further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the character string information includes a predetermined domain (Van Bergen teaches checking the domain top level domain portion of the destination email address against predetermined permitted-domain criteria. See Van Bergen, claim 3; FIG. 6, S35).
Inoue, Takamiya, and Van Bergen are combinable because all three references are directed to image processing/MFP apparatuses that process electronic transmission settings containing destination information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Van Bergen’s domain based restrictions as a known technique for controlling which email destinations may be used by an image processing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Takamiya and Van Bergen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18:
The proposed combination of Inoue in view of Takamiya and Van Bergen further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 17, further comprising: a registration unit configured to be able to register the one or more predetermined domain (Van Bergen teaches that a Key Operator or System Administrator may configure criteria determining which destination email addresses are permitted, including a predefined group based upon one or more domains such as “@oce.com” and “@microsoft.com.”).
Inoue, Takamiya, and Van Bergen are combinable because all three references are directed to image processing/MFP apparatuses that process electronic transmission settings containing destination information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Van Bergen’s domain based restrictions as a known technique for controlling which email destinations may be used by an image processing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Takamiya and Van Bergen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
15. Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Takamiya and Van Bergen as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ozawa.
Regarding Claim 12:
The proposed combination of Inoue, Takamiya & Van Bergen further discloses image processing apparatus according to claim 11, but do not expressly disclose wherein in a case of displaying the setting screen of the function corresponding to the job history information that does not include the destination not corresponding to the predetermined character string, the display control unit displays a notification indicating that the destination not corresponding to the predetermined character string is not included.
Ozawa discloses discloses notifying a user when a transmission destination has been determined to be inadequate (Ozawa displays an inadequate address in a different manner, such as in red, and additionally displays deletion selecting screen 91. See FIG. 24B; S101-S104. Ozawa teaches that the differentiated display informs the user that the address differs from the applicable limiting condition and enables the user to recognize and correct the destination condition).
Inoue, Takamiya, Van Bergen, and Ozawa are combinable because each is directed to an image processing apparatus handling electronic transmission destinations and displaying transmission-setting information to a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a corresponding notification when a destination is omitted from a recalled transmission setting. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide the notification so that the user is informed that the recalled job setting no longer contains all destination information associated with the original transmission setting and does not proceed under the mistaken assumption that the omitted destination remains active. Ozawa expressly teaches providing a visual indication for substantially the same purpose to inform the user that destination information does not satisfy the applicable destination condition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue, Takamiya, and Van Bergen with Ozawa to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13:
The proposed combination of Inoue in view of Takamiya and Van Bergen further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 10, but do not expressly disclose wherein in a case where the at least one or more destinations included in the setting information corresponding to the job history information do not correspond to the predetermined character string, the display control unit displays the setting information not including the destination not corresponding to the predetermined character string.
Takamiya expressly teaches the selective treatment of multiple destinations. Takamiya teaches that when a registered transmission setting contains an address satisfying the predetermined destination condition together with another transmission destination, the satisfying destination may be left in the transmission setting while another destination is deleted. See Takamiya claim 6.
Van Bergen teaches performing the destination determination based upon whether the domain portion of the destination e-mail address satisfies predefined permitted-domain criteria.
Ozawa additionally teaches evaluating individual addresses among a plurality of addresses and identifying and deleting an address determined to be inadequate while leaving the remaining destinations available. See FIG. 24B; S101–S107.
Inoue, Takamiya, Van Bergen, and Ozawa are combinable because each is directed to image processing apparatuses processing one or more electronic transmission destinations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Van Bergen’s domain comparison individually to destinations contained in Inoue’s recalled setting information and, consistent with Takamiya and Ozawa, retain destinations satisfying the permitted-domain determination while removing a destination that does not satisfy the determination. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to preserve as much reusable setting information as possible while removing only destination information identified as failing the destination security criterion. This modification directly furthers Inoue’s objective of avoiding the need for the user to make previous settings again while also providing the destination security benefits taught by Van Bergen, Takamiya, and Ozawa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue, Takamiya, and Van Bergen with Ozawa to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14:
The proposed combination of Inoue, Takamiya, Van Bergen and Ozawa further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein in a case of displaying the setting screen of the function corresponding to the job history information that does not include the destination not corresponding to the predetermined character string, the display control unit displays a notification indicating that the destination not corresponding to the predetermined character string is not included.
Ozawa expressly teaches visually identifying an inadequate address among a plurality of addresses and displaying deletion selecting screen 91 in connection with the inadequate destination. See FIG. 24B; S101–S104.
For the reasons discussed above with respect to claims 12 and 13, it would have been obvious to provide a corresponding notification when the destination failing Van Bergen’s domain criterion is omitted while another destination remains in the recalled setting information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue, Takamiya, and Van Bergen with Ozawa to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Horiyama (US 8,893,151 B2) discloses that when an instruction about changing the job execution limit information is made, a policy server determines whether or not the changed job execution limit information indicates that the execution of the job by the job execution unit is not limited. When the changed job execution limit information indicates that the execution of the job is not limited and the setting is made such that the job history information for the job is recorded on the image processing apparatus, the policy server sets the changed job execution limit information to the image processing apparatus.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, PST.
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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights