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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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)(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.
Claims 1-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mori Ruyta et al (JP 7233576 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Ryuta et al discloses an information processing apparatus (¶ [15]) comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive image data (¶ [15] and ¶ [22]) and transmission source information about the image data from an external apparatus (¶ [22]);
a generation unit configured to generate a file from the received image data (¶ [34]); and
a setting unit configured to acquire identification information corresponding to the received transmission source information from a database, and set a name including the identification information for the generated file (¶ [74] and ¶ [76]).
Regarding claim 2, Ryuta et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the setting unit is configured to, in a case where the received transmission source information is registered in the database, set the name including the identification information corresponding to the transmission source information for the generated file (¶ [76]), and in a case where the received transmission source information is not registered in the database, set a name including the received transmission source information for the generated file (¶ [76]).
Regarding claim 3, Ryuta et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2), wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to transmit the file to a storage location based on the name of the file set by the setting unit (¶ [77-78]).
Regarding claim 4, Ryuta et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3), wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to, in a case where the name of the file set by the setting unit includes the identification information, transmit the file to a storage location named after the identification information (¶ [77]).
Regarding claim 5, Ryuta et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3), wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to instruct a storage medium to generate the storage location of the file based on the name of the file set by the setting unit (¶ [92] and ¶ [94]).
Regarding claim 6, Ryuta et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to transmit the file to a storage location based on the name of the file set by the setting unit (¶ [92]).
Regarding claim 7, Ryuta et al disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6), wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to, in a case where the name of the file set by the setting unit includes the identification information, transmit the file to a storage location named after the identification information (¶ [77] and ¶ [92]).
Regarding claim 8, Ryuta et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6), wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to instruct a storage medium to generate the storage location of the file based on the name of the file set by the setting unit (see rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 9, Ryuta et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), the transmission source information is a sender name (¶ [25] “registered name” indicates user name).
Regarding claim 10, Ryuta et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the transmission source information is a transmission source number (¶ [25] source telephone number).
Regarding claim 11, Ryuta et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the reception unit is configured to receive the image data and the transmission source information about the image data by facsimile (FAX) (¶ [15] and ¶ [22]).
Regarding claim 14, Ryuta et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the setting unit is configured to acquire the identification information corresponding to the received transmission source information from the database (see rejection of claim 1), the database being located outside the information processing apparatus (¶ [15] external cloud server).
Regarding claim 15, Ryuta et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), further comprising a printing unit configured to print an image based on the image data on a sheet (¶ [17]).
Regarding claim 16, Ryuta et al discloses an information processing method (see rejection of claim 1) comprising:
receiving image data and transmission source information about the image data from an external apparatus (see rejection of claim 1);
generating a file from the received image data (see rejection of claim 1); and
acquiring identification information corresponding to the received transmission source information from a database, and setting a name including the identification information for the generated file (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Ryuta et al discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a program causing an information processing apparatus to perform an information processing method (¶ [18]), the information processing method comprising:
receiving image data and transmission source information about the image data from an external apparatus (see rejection of claim 1);
generating a file from the received image data (see rejection of claim 1); and
acquiring identification information corresponding to the received transmission source information from a database, and setting a name including the identification information for the generated file (see rejection of claim 1).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryuta et al in view of Kubota Kosuke et al (JP 6881153 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Ryuta et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Ryuta et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the reception unit is configured to receive the image data and the transmission source information about the image data by email.
Kosuke et al, in the same field of endeavor of creating a storage location name based on source identification information (¶ [19]), teaches the reception unit is configured to receive the image data and the transmission source information about the image data by email (¶ [127]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the information processing apparatus as disclosed by Ryuta et al comprising a setting unit configured to acquire identification information corresponding to received transmission source information from a database, and set a name including the identification information for the generated file to utilize the teachings of Kosuke et al which teaches the reception unit is configured to receive the image data and the transmission source information about the image data by email to expand the image data naming technique to a variety of different communication and/or transmission methods to increase the number of accessible end users.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryuta et al in view of Maemura Koichiro (JP 2004228944 A).
Regarding claim 13, Ryuta et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Ryuta et al fails to explicitly discloses wherein the reception unit is configured to receive the transmission source information about the image data using a non-standard facilities set-up (NSS) signal.
Koichiro, in the same field of endeavor of generating a name for a received image data file (¶ [62]), teaches the reception unit is configured to receive the transmission source information about the image data using a non-standard facilities set-up (NSS) signal (¶ [63]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the information processing apparatus as disclosed by Ryuta et al comprising a setting unit configured to acquire identification information corresponding to received transmission source information from a database, and set a name including the identification information for the generated file to utilize the teachings of Koichiro which teaches generating a name for a received image data file (¶ [62]), teaches the reception unit is configured to receive the transmission source information about the image data using a non-standard facilities set-up (NSS) signal to enable negotiation of proprietary features between fax machines of the same make or model while bypassing standard T.30 protocols in an environment where the FAX IP address is not fixed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
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.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights