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 .
Claims 1-8 as submitted on 9/19/24 were examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The last clause of claim 5’s formatting should be fixed so that a new paragraph is not inserted in the middle of the clause.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Negoro et al (US 2014/0082747).
Claims 1 and 5:
As per claim 1, Negoro discloses:
An information processing system includes an electronic device (Fig 1, Operating Device 100) and an authentication system (Fig 1, Main Body Device 110),
the electronic device comprising:
a storage device that is installed a normal application program (paragraphs 26, 28-29, and 31-32; Operating device 100 contain several applications installed on various storage devices, such as items 102a and 102b); and
a processor that executes the normal application program (paragraphs 40 and 51; and Fig 1, Operating Device OS and/or Operation Panel 101 or a standard CPU that is present in any modern electronic device as seen in Fig 1, item 100),
wherein the authentication system is provided outside the electronic device and is one or more computers that authenticate a user in response to an authentication request from a processor (paragraphs 42-45 and Fig 1); As discussed in paragraph 42 in particular and seen in Figure 1, Main Body Device 110 is an authentication system that is provided outside the Operating Device 100, which is considered equivalent to the claimed electronic device. Operating Device 100 authenticates the user in response to a request from the processor of operating device 100), and
when the processor receives an instruction to execute the normal application, if information indicating a success of the authentication of the user has already been obtained from the authentication system in response to the request of authentication of the user, the processor decides that the user is authorized to utilize the normal application to be a target of the instruction (paragraphs 44-47).
The rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 5.
Claims 2 and 6:
As per claim 2, Negoro further discloses:
the electronic device further comprising:
a display device (paragraphs 24 and 27),
wherein the processor causes the display device to display an operation screen for receiving instructions to execute the normal application (paragraphs 27-28 and 33; A display is used to display choices to the user and receive inputs from the user with respect to operations carried out by apps to provide various functions of, for example, copier, printer, scanner, etc.)
The rejection of claim 2 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 6.
Claims 3 and 7:
As per claim 3, Negoro further discloses:
when the processor receives the instruction to execute the normal application through an operation based on the operation screen, the processor completes the activation of the normal application when the processor determines that user is authorized to utilize the normal application (paragraphs 47-48).
The rejection of claim 3 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 7.
Claim 4 and 8:
As per claim 4, Negoro further discloses:
when the processor determines that the user is not authorized to utilize the normal application, the processor causes the display device to display a screen indicating that the user is not authorized to utilize the normal application (paragraph 46; Authentication failed message is displayed on the display screen when user authentication fails).
The rejection of claim 4 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PONNOREAY PICH whose telephone number is (571)272-7962. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST, 10am-6pm during Daylight Savings Time.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/PONNOREAY PICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights