DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 07/28/2026.
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 instant Amendment, filed on 07/28/2026, claims 1, 13, and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-14 have been examined and are pending; claims 1, 13, and 14 are independent. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
As to the double patenting rejections to claims 1-14, which were provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, the Applicant traverses this rejection, and submitted that as the amended pending claims of the co-pending ‘012 application [i.e., reference application] requires actual control for restricting use of server functions. In contrast, the claims of the insistent application are directed to notifying or recommending that certain control can be performed. More specifically, amended independent claims 1, 8, and 10 of the ‘012 application now require not only setting a security policy including a setting for disabling server functions, but also applying the security policy to disable the server functions when the settings of connection are set so that the information processing apparatus is to be connected to the serverless computing environment. Furthermore, amended independent claims 2, 9, and 11 of the '012 application now require network-specific filter settings respectively associated with a plurality of networks, and further require blocking communication to the server functions via one of the plurality of networks while allowing the server functions to be used via another one of the plurality of networks (Applicant Argument/Remarks, 07/28/2026, pages 1-2).
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant. The double patenting issue still remains even claims of both applications are amended. While the scope of the reference application’s claims directed to application/implementation of security-policy-based control, network-specific filtering control and require actual control for restricting use of server functions, in an active function steps, the claims of the instant application, captures a scope, citing, give notification prompting a user to change a setting so as to restrict use of the server functions in the computing environment when the server functions are set to be enabled [with respect to disable] and the information processing apparatus is set to be connected to the computing environment, in a passive function steps, an obvious linguistic citation variation of the instant claims, keeping the scope of the claims same. Thus, the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections are maintained. Please, see the double patenting rejection section for mor detail.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, respectively, of the co-pending Application No. 18/987012, in view of Ishikawa (“Ishikawa,” JP 2020154832, published on 09/24/2020 (used an English translated copy for mapping).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
The following addressed claims 1, 8, and 10 of the reference Application 118/987012 capture the scope of the independent claims 1, 13, and 14 of the instant Application 118/987042, but not citing the limitation, “give[ing] notification prompting a user to change a setting so as to restrict use of the server functions”
However, Ishikawa, in an analogous art, discloses the scope of the limitation, “give[ing] notification prompting a user to change a setting so as to restrict use of the server functions” (Ishikawa: pages 3-4, selectively disabling one of the lines for network environment managing based on the priority and needs. The configuration settings are displayed on the operation unit, for user to selectively enabling/disabling one of the lines for network environment managing based on the priority and needs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ishikawa with the method/system of reference applications, to include the limitation, give[ing] notification prompting a user to change a setting so as to restrict use of the server functions where one would have been motivated to implement feature for user to select in enabling/disabling lines for network environment managing, based on the priority and needs (Ishikawa: pages 3-4). Therefore claims 1, 13, and 14, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
The dependent claims 2-10 are also subject to double patenting over, the reference, respectively.
Instant Application 18/987042
Reference Application 18/987012
1. A server-configurable information processing apparatus, comprising:
one or more first memory devices that store a set of instructions; and one or more first processors that execute the set of instructions to:
perform a setting whether server functions are enabled or disabled, perform a setting whether or not to connect the information processing apparatus to a serverless computing environment in which the server functions of the information processing apparatus are not used, and
give notification prompting a user to change a setting so as to restrict use of the server functions in the serverless computing environment when the server functions are set to be enabled and the information processing apparatus is set to be connected to the serverless computing environment.
1. A server-configurable information processing apparatus, comprising:
one or more first memory devices that store a set of instructions; and one or more first processors that execute the set of instructions to:
perform settings as to whether server functions are enabled or disabled,
perform settings as to whether or not to connect the information processing apparatus to a serverless computing environment in which the server functions of the information processing apparatus are not used;
set a security policy including a setting for disabling the server functions when the information processing apparatus is used in the serverless computing environment; and
apply the security policy perform settings to disable the server functions when the settings of connection are set so that to connect the information processing apparatus is to be connected to the serverless computing environment.
13. A method for network setting of a server-configurable information processing apparatus, the method comprising:
performing a setting whether server functions are enabled or disabled, performing a setting whether or not to connect the information processing apparatus to a serverless computing environment in which the server functions of the information processing apparatus are not used, and
giving notification prompting a user to change a setting so as to restrict use of the server functions in the serverless computing environment when the server functions are set to be enabled and the information processing apparatus is set to be connected to the serverless computing environment.
8. A network setting method in a server-configurable information processing apparatus, the network setting method comprising: performing settings as to whether server functions are enabled or disabled, performing settings as to whether or not to connect the information processing apparatus to a serverless computing environment in which the server functions of the information processing apparatus are not used;
setting a security policy including a setting for disabling the server functions when the information processing apparatus is used in the serverless computing environment; and
applying the security policy to disable the server functions when the settings of connection are set so that the information processing apparatus is to be connected to the serverless computing environment.
14. A method non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute each step of a method for network setting of a server-configurable information processing apparatus, the method comprising:
performing a setting whether server functions are enabled or disabled, performing a setting whether or not to connect the information processing apparatus to a serverless computing environment in which the server functions of the information processing apparatus are not used, and
giving notification prompting a user to change a setting so as to restrict use of the server functions in the serverless computing environment when the server functions are set to be enabled and the information processing apparatus is set to be connected to the serverless computing environment.
10. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute each step of a network setting method in a server-configurable for network settings of an information processing apparatus, the method comprising: performing settings as to whether server functions are enabled or disabled, performing settings as to whether or not to connect the information processing apparatus to a serverless computing environment in which the server functions of the information processing apparatus are not used; setting a security policy including a setting for disabling the server functions when the information processing apparatus is used in the serverless computing environment; and
applying the security policy to disable the server functions when the settings of connection are set to connect so that the information processing apparatus is to be connected to the serverless computing environment.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (“Ishikawa,” JP 2020154832, published on 09/24/2020 (used an English translated copy for mapping), in view of Segal et al (“Segal,” US 20220329597, published on 10/13/2022).
As to claim 1, Ishikawa teaches a server-configurable information processing apparatus, comprising: one or more first memory devices that store a set of instructions; and one or more first processors that execute the set of instructions (Ishikawa: pages 2-4; Fig 1, a Multi-Function Peripheral device (MPF), comprising, processor, a controller unit, and operational uni. The MPF operates to configure and manage connection with a first communication interface and a second communication interface with two separate Local Area Network (LAN) connections) to:
perform a setting whether server functions are enabled or disabled, perform a setting whether or not to connect the information processing apparatus to a computing environment (Ishikawa: pages 3-4; Fig 1, the MPF performs proses to identify the network communication lines connecting to the network devices, such as main line and subline, and makes configuration decision to activate both lines or one of the lines), and give notification prompting a user to change a setting so as to restrict use of the server functions in the computing environment when the server functions are set to be enabled and the information processing apparatus is set to be connected to the computing environment (Ishikawa: pages 3-4, selectively disabling one of the lines for network environment managing based on the priority and needs. The configuration settings are displayed on the operation unit, for user to selectively enabling/disabling one of the lines for network environment managing based on the priority and needs).
Ishikawa does not explicitly teach computing environment to be a serverless computing environment, in which the server functions of the information processing apparatus are not used.
However, in an analogous art, Segal teaches serverless computing environment (Segal: pars 0006, 0068, teaches of securing a serverless application. Where, the serverless computing is used by organizations to develop microservice-based applications, by implementing the different services as functions, each with its own specific role,), in which the server functions of the information processing apparatus are not used (Segal: pars 0068-0070, creates and applies a security policy for each component of the serverless application. Where the policy denies all access requests except for requests that come from authorized components [i.e., any function other than the allowed serverless function, are not used]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Segal with the method/system of Ishikawa to include the limitation(s), serverless computing environment, in which the server functions of the information processing apparatus are not used, where one would have been motivated to implement the connection setting of connection in a serverless environment and allocating computing resources for microservice under specific role and policy, and allowing and denying the access to the components of serverless domain, based on the permitted function(s) (Segal: pars 0006, 0068-0070).
As to claim 2, the combination of Ishikawa and Segal teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Ishikawa further teaches wherein giving the notification of prompting the user to change the setting so as to restrict use of the server functions includes displaying a warning screen including display prompting to change a setting so as to restrict use of the server functions (Ishikawa: pages 3-5; Fig 1, user is able to change setting, the configuration setting are displayed on the operation unit, for user to selectively enabling/disabling one of the lines for network environment managing based on the priority and needs, and confirms user setting choice).
As to claim 3, the combination of Ishikawa and Segal teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2,
Ishikawa further teaches wherein the warning screen further includes a first object, and the one or more first processors that execute the set of instructions to: block data reception to the information processing apparatus while the warning screen is displayed, and close the warning screen and cancel blocking of the data reception when the first object is operated (Ishikawa: pages 3-5; Fig 1, user is able to change setting, the configuration setting are displayed on the operation unit, for user to selectively enabling/disabling one of the lines for network environment managing based on the priority and needs, and confirms user setting choice. Displays various messages related to the routing setting, including a message when an error or the like occurs).
As to claim 4, the combination of Ishikawa and Segal teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2,
Ishikawa further teaches wherein the warning screen further includes a second object, and giving the notification of prompting the user to change the setting so as to restrict use of the server functions is closing the warning screen and performing display, on a status line, prompting to change a setting so as to restrict use of the server functions when the second object is operated (Ishikawa: pages 3-5; Fig 1, user is able to change setting, the configuration setting are displayed on the operation unit, for user to selectively enabling/disabling one of the lines for network environment managing based on the priority and needs, and confirms user setting choice).
As to claim 5, the combination of Ishikawa and Segal teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2,
Ishikawa further teaches wherein the warning screen further includes a third object for calling a setting to restrict use of the server functions (Ishikawa: pages 3-5; Fig 5(a), 5(b) a button is used [i.e., third object] for the user to instruct the user to change the setting of the device. When the button is pressed, the setting screen is shown).
As to claim 6, the combination of Ishikawa and Segal teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Ishikawa further teaches wherein giving the notification prompting the user to change the setting so as to restrict use of the server functions is notification prompting to set to disable a setting of the server functions (Ishikawa: pages 3-5; Fig 1, user is able to change setting, the configuration setting are displayed on the operation unit, for user to selectively enabling/disabling one of the lines for network environment managing based on the priority and needs).
As to claim 7, the combination of Ishikawa and Segal teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Ishikawa further teaches wherein giving the notification prompting the user to change the setting so as to restrict use of the server functions is giving notification prompting the user to perform a setting of a network filter (Ishikawa: pages 3-4; Fig 1, the MPF specifies whether to enable or disable the network filter setting for the line(s) using the enable / disable setting feature. Then applying the network policy set the network filter table [i.e., setting the filter settings]).
As to claim 8, the combination of Ishikawa and Segal teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Ishikawa further teaches wherein the one or more first processors that execute the set of instructions to: perform a setting of a security policy, wherein giving the notification of prompting the user to change the setting so as to restrict use of the server functions is giving notification of recommending a review of the setting of the security policy (Ishikawa: pages 3-5; Fig 1, user is able to change setting, the configuration setting are displayed on the operation unit, for user to selectively enabling/disabling one of the lines for network environment managing based on the priority and needs, and confirms user setting choice. Displays various messages related to the routing setting, including a message when an error or the like occurs).
As to claim 9, the combination of Ishikawa and Segal teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Ishikawa further teaches wherein the one or more first processors that execute the set of instructions to: give notification prompting the user to perform a setting of a network filter when the information processing apparatus is connected to a plurality of networks, the server functions are set to be enabled, and the information processing apparatus is set to be connected to the serverless computing environment (Ishikawa: pages 3-4, the configuration setting are displayed on the operation unit, for user to selectively enabling/disabling one of the lines for network environment managing based on the priority and needs. Filter policy specification unit can specify the filter policy for the lines by the user. Displaying network filter rule, and receiving the selection input from user).
As to claim 10, the combination of Ishikawa and Segal teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Ishikawa further teaches wherein the one or more first processors that execute the set of instructions to: give notification prompting the user to perform a setting of disabling the server functions when there is one line of the network to which the information processing apparatus is connected, the server functions are set to be enabled, and the information processing apparatus is set to be connected to the serverless computing environment (Ishikawa: pages 3-4; Fig 1, the MPF performs proses to identify the network communication lines, and makes configuration decision to activate both lines or one of the lines).
As to claim 11, the combination of Ishikawa and Segal teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Ishikawa further teaches wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to: set a security policy, and give notification of a recommendation to review setting of the security policy when the server functions are set to be enabled, the information processing apparatus is set to be connected to the serverless computing environment, and the security policy is set (Ishikawa: pages 3-5; Fig 1, user is able to change setting, the configuration setting are displayed on the operation unit, for user to selectively enabling/disabling one of the lines for network environment managing based on the priority and needs, and confirms user setting choice. Displays various messages related to the routing setting, including a message when an error or the like occurs).
As to claim 12, the combination of Ishikawa and Segal teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Ishikawa further teaches wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to: perform a setting whether to give notification prompting the user to change a setting so as to disable the server functions in the serverless computing environment, and give notification prompting the user to change a setting so as to restrict use of the server functions in the serverless computing environment when the server functions are set to be enabled, the information processing apparatus is set to be connected to the serverless computing environment, and a setting to give notification prompting the user is set (Ishikawa: pages 3-5; Fig 1, user is able to change setting, the configuration setting are displayed on the operation unit, for user to selectively enabling/disabling one of the lines for network environment managing based on the priority and needs, and confirms user setting choice. [i.e., both disabling and enabling operation setting process]).
As to claim 13, the claim is directed to a method, and the scope of the claim limitations is similar to the scope of the apparatus claim 1, and therefore, rejected for the same reason set forth above for claim 1.
As to claim 14, the claim is directed to a storage medium, and the scope of the claim limitations is similar to the scope of the apparatus claim 1, and therefore, rejected for the same reason set forth above for claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jahangir Kabir whose telephone number is (571) 270-3355. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00- 5:00 Mon-Thu.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAHANGIR KABIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights