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 .
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urakawa et al. US2021/0306485 hereinafter referred to as Urakawa in view of Kawamura US2017/0208199.
As per Claim 1, Urakawa teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: an operation device to which an instruction from a user is inputted; a display device; a communication device that performs data communication with an external device; (Urakawa, Figure 1) and a control device including a processor, and configured to act, when the processor executes a control program, as a controller that causes the display device to display an operation screen, according to the instruction inputted to the operation device, wherein the controller is configured to:
establish remote connection with the external device through the communication device, and execute a remote process according to a remote instruction transmitted from the remotely connected external device; transmit image data representing the remote screen, serving as the operation screen to be displayed on the display device when the remote process is executed, to the external device; and (Urakawa, Paragraph [0123], “As described above, the MFP 100 of the first illustrative embodiment includes the network I/F 108, the panel 105, and the CPU 101. When the MFP 100 is remotely connected with the PC 10 via the network I/F 108, the CPU 101 transmits to the PC 10 screen data for causing the PC 10 to display substantially the same screen as the display screen being displayed on the panel 105, receives remote access from the PC 10, and perform display processing for the display screen in accordance with the remote access. In this case, if the CPU 101 receives the remote access when the display screen is the particular screen (i.e., while the particular screen is being displayed as the display screen on the panel 105), the CPU 101 imposes a display restriction on the display screen”)
execute, at a predetermined timing while the information processing apparatus is in operation in remote connection with the external device, (Urakawa, Paragraph [0007], “when the image forming apparatus is not remotely connected with the information processing device via the communication interface, control the display to display a first screen that is a particular screen, and when the image forming apparatus is remotely connected with the information processing device via the communication interface, control the display to display a second screen instead of the first screen, the second screen being displayed in a display mode different from a display mode for the first screen”)
Urakawa does not explicitly teach concealing display operation including causing the display device to display a predetermined substitute screen not containing an operation detail related to the remote process, instead of causing the display device to display the remote screen.
Kawamura teaches concealing display operation including causing the display device to display a predetermined substitute screen not containing an operation detail related to the remote process, instead of causing the display device to display the remote screen. (Kawamura, Paragraph [0058], “A display management unit 608 performs management of a display based on the state of the MFP 102. In the present embodiment, if the MFP 102 is during remote support service, that “The MFP is during remote maintenance” as illustrated in FIG. 5 is made known to a user” The user doesn’t see the process of the remote maintenance and therefore is concealed. The user however will see The MFP is during remote maintenance”)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Kawamura into Urakawa because by providing a notification withholding information from the user will provide only information relevant to the user for current and future processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the two references to obtain the invention in Claim 1.
As per Claim 2, Urakawa in view of Kawamura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: operate the information processing apparatus in an operation mode either a normal mode or a maintenance mode; (Urakawa, Paragraph[0084], “FIG. 9 shows a detailed procedure of the main body panel process. In the main body panel process shown in FIG. 9, first, the CPU 101 determines whether a particular screen is being displayed on the panel 105 (S61). Examples of the particular screen may include, but are not limited to, the same screen as the panel display 105d (see FIG. 3B) immediately before the transition of the MFP 100 to the maintenance mode, and a screen after the transition of the MFP 100 to the maintenance mode”) and execute the concealing display operation at the predetermined timing, defined as when a transition instruction from the normal mode to the maintenance mode is received through the operation device, while being remotely connected to the external device. (Kawamura, Paragraph [0058], “A display management unit 608 performs management of a display based on the state of the MFP 102. In the present embodiment, if the MFP 102 is during remote support service, that “The MFP is during remote maintenance” as illustrated in FIG. 5 is made known to a user” The user doesn’t see the process of the remote maintenance and therefore is concealed. The user however will see The MFP is during remote maintenance”)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 3, Urakawa in view of Kawamura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller switches the operation mode from the maintenance mode to the normal mode, when the remote connection with the external device is disconnected while the substitute screen is displayed on the display device, and causes the display device to switch a display screen from the substitute screen to a normal screen, corresponding to the operation screen to be displayed during an operation in the normal mode. ; (Urakawa, Paragraph[0084], “FIG. 9 shows a detailed procedure of the main body panel process. In the main body panel process shown in FIG. 9, first, the CPU 101 determines whether a particular screen is being displayed on the panel 105 (S61). Examples of the particular screen may include, but are not limited to, the same screen as the panel display 105d (see FIG. 3B) immediately before the transition of the MFP 100 to the maintenance mode, and a screen after the transition of the MFP 100 to the maintenance mode”)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 4, Urakawa in view of Kawamura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein, when the remote process is being executed in the maintenance mode, the controller causes the display device to display, as the substitute screen, a prohibition screen that accepts an instruction related to a normal operation executed in the normal mode, but rejects an instruction related to the remote process. (Urakawa, Paragraph [0123], “As described above, the MFP 100 of the first illustrative embodiment includes the network I/F 108, the panel 105, and the CPU 101. When the MFP 100 is remotely connected with the PC 10 via the network I/F 108, the CPU 101 transmits to the PC 10 screen data for causing the PC 10 to display substantially the same screen as the display screen being displayed on the panel 105, receives remote access from the PC 10, and perform display processing for the display screen in accordance with the remote access. In this case, if the CPU 101 receives the remote access when the display screen is the particular screen (i.e., while the particular screen is being displayed as the display screen on the panel 105), the CPU 101 imposes a display restriction on the display screen”)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 5, Urakawa in view of Kawamura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller executes the concealing display operation, at the predetermined timing defined as when a predetermined concealment request is received from the remotely connected external device, through the communication device. (Urakawa, Paragraph[0084] and Kawamura, Paragraph [0058], “A display management unit 608 performs management of a display based on the state of the MFP 102. In the present embodiment, if the MFP 102 is during remote support service, that “The MFP is during remote maintenance” as illustrated in FIG. 5 is made known to a user” The user doesn’t see the process of the remote maintenance and therefore is concealed. The user however will see The MFP is during remote maintenance”)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 6, Urakawa in view of Kawamura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller continues with displaying the substitute screen on the display device, despite the remote connection with the external device having been disconnected, while the substitute screen is displayed on the display device. (Urakawa, Paragraph[0084] and Kawamura, Paragraph [0058], “A display management unit 608 performs management of a display based on the state of the MFP 102. In the present embodiment, if the MFP 102 is during remote support service, that “The MFP is during remote maintenance” as illustrated in FIG. 5 is made known to a user” The user doesn’t see the process of the remote maintenance and therefore is concealed. The user however will see The MFP is during remote maintenance”)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 8, Urakawa in view of Kawamura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to: execute a log-in process upon receipt of an instruction to transit to the maintenance mode through the operation device; execute the concealing display operation upon deciding that an operator of the external device is a legitimate service person; and keep from executing the concealing display operation, upon deciding that the operator of the external device is not a legitimate service person. (Urakawa, Paragraph [0055], “The users authorized to log in to the “Remote Panel” are limited to administrators having administrative privileges. Therefore, a user (e.g., an administrator) who attempts to log in to the “Remote Panel” is required to input an administrator name (e.g., “Administrator”) in a user name entry field 190a on the login authentication screen 190 and input an administrator password in a password entry field 190b. Then, when the said user clicks a login button 190c with the cursor C, a checking screen 105a for checking whether the MFP 100 is allowed to be remotely controlled is displayed on the panel 105 of the MFP 100, as shown in FIG. 2C. When a user of the MFP 100 presses a “Yes” button 105a1 on the checking screen 105a, the “Remote Panel” is displayed in the detail pane 184.”)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 9, Urakawa in view of Kawamura teaches the image forming apparatus comprising: the information processing apparatus according to claim 1; and an image forming device that forms an image on a recording medium. (Urakawa, Paragraph [0048], “The MFP 100 further includes the engine I/F 110. The engine I/F 110 is connected with the print engine 111”)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urakawa et al. US2021/0306485 hereinafter referred to as Urakawa in view of Kawamura US2017/0208199 as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Mori US2022/0237933.
As per Claim 7, Urakawa in view of Kawamura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to: define the predetermined timing as when the remote process is being executed; cause the display device to display the remote screen as the substitute screen; and
Urakawa in view of Kawamura does not explicitly teach erase character information received
Mori teaches erase character information received (Mori, Figure 6B, Paragraph [0059], “A “file name delete” button 613 is used to delete the character corresponding to the character region added to the end of the file name. A “preview scale-up” button 614 is used to increase the magnification of the image displayed on the preview region”)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Mori into Urakawa in view of Kawamura because by providing functions such as deleting data will allow users to perform user-desirable functions.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the three references to obtain the invention in Claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING HON whose telephone number is (571)270-5245. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached on 571-270-3717. 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.
/MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights