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 .
This is a non-final office action in response to applicant’s communication filed on 2/11/2025. Claims 1-12 are pending and considered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-024274, filed on 02/21/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/11/2025 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 filed as stated above is attached to the instant Office Action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. [0088] line 2, “NDS” may be typo.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Para. [0090] of the published specification contents hyperlinks: https://mfp101.office.local/RemoteUI/authentication/
Para. [0093] of the published specification contents
https://mfp101.office.local/RemoteUI/authentication/challenge
Para. [0095] of the published specification contents
https://mfp 101.office.local/RemoteUI/authentication/verification
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-10, 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 line 2 recites “auto registration”. Applicant is suggested to recite “automatic” in place of “auto” for formality.
Similarly, claims 6, 8-10, 12.
Claim 7 line 2, “… performs the authentication” may read “… performs the user authentication”.
Claim 7 last line, “redirection to a URL …” is suggested to read “redirection to a URL associated with the IP address …”, or more appropriate form.
Claim Interpretation(s) - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a user authentication unit…” in claims 1, 8, 11-12; “a control unit …” in claims 1, 11; and “a DNS registration setting unit …” in claim 12.
Examiner notes, a user authentication unit, a control unit, and a DNS registration setting unit are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as hardware module as indicated above. If applicant intends to recite above units as software modules, applicant is suggested to include at least one hardware component in the apparatus/system claim(s).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 11-12, claim limitations “user authentication unit”, “control unit”, and “DNS registration setting unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Review of applicant’s specification suggests the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim(s). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 lines 10-11 recites “… in a state in which the user authentication unit is valid”. It is not clear what “the user authentication unit is valid” is referring to, rendering the claim indefinite. The claim recites no action to validate the user authentication unit since the user authentication unit is recited to perform user authentication. Further, claim 2 recites “to switch a setting of validity/invalidity of the user authentication unit”. It is not clear what the “validity” or “invalidity” really referring to.
Similarly, for claim 8, 10-12.
Claims 2-7, 9 depend on claim 1, 8 respectively, therefore are also rejected for the same reason set forth above.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US20180341759A1, hereinafter, “Sato”), in view of Merrill (US20080175377A1, hereinafter, “Merrill”), further in view of Takahashi (US20180211053A1, hereinafter, “Takahashi”).
Regarding claim 1, similarly claim 11, Sato teaches:
An image processing apparatus (Sato, discloses image processing apparatus communicates with a user's mobile terminal that includes an authentication module for biometric authentication as FIDO authentication, see [Abstract]) comprising at least one processor or circuit (See Fig. 2A, 2B, 2C, CPU, and Fig. 3 Authenticator) configured to function as:
a user authentication unit (e.g., Fig. 3B, Authenticator 350) configured to perform user authentication by verifying a digital signature using a public key stored in advance in association with an identifier of a user, wherein the digital signature is received from an information processing apparatus through HTTP communication (e.g., [0009] an authentication module to perform biometric authentication, transmit, when the authentication module included in the mobile terminal is identified as the authentication module to perform biometric authentication, the verification data to the mobile terminal, and transmit, in a case where signature data generated by using the secret key stored in the storage area of the mobile terminal and the verification data is returned in response to a success of authentication processing of the user by the authentication module of the mobile terminal, the signature data to an issuer of the verification data, wherein, in a case where the signature data is verified by the issuer of the verification data by using a public key corresponding to the secret key. Also Fig. 1, and [0027] The system includes a multifunction peripheral (MFP) 101 that is an example of an image processing apparatus, a mobile terminal 102 that is owned by a user, a print system 103 that is an example of a service provision system, and a client personal computer (PC) 104 (i.e., information processing apparatus). And [0102] The authentication request data 1110 includes the authentication parameters 1100 generated by the print service 370, a print service ID 1112, and a web origin 1113. The web origin 1113 is the origin of the print service 370. The print service ID 1112 stores information about the top- and second-level domains of the print service 370. For example, if the URL of the print service 370 is http://www.pull-print.com);
and a control unit (e.g., Fig. 3A, Authentication control unit 304) configured to generate a cooperation authentication screen or a pass key authentication screen (Fig. 13, and [0117] In step S1251, the biometric information request unit 354 of the authenticator 350 displays an input request screen 1300 of biometric information, illustrated in FIG. 13) [for prompting access by authentication using pass key corresponding to the public key] [when access to the user authentication unit from the information processing apparatus is made using an IP address in a state in which the user authentication unit is valid]. (See teachings of Merrill and Takahashi below for limitation(s) in brackets above)
While Sato teaches the image processing apparatus shown above but does not specifically teach the following, in the same field of endeavor Merrill teaches:
(generate a cooperation authentication screen or a pass key authentication screen) (see Sato shown above) for prompting access by authentication using pass key corresponding to the public key (Merrill, discloses systems and methods for digital authentication using digitally signed images, see [Abstract]. And [0032] Authentication of a key image, or other key element, is performed electronically… a first party may want to establish a secure transmission with a second party. Upon establishment of a Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) session to a web server, the first party is prompted by local application running on a processor … a browser extension, for the location of a key image file along with a passkey associated with the key image. The local application uses the passkey to decrypt a server-side public key that may be encoded in the image, which may be used for server connection verification. Authentication may only proceed if the encoded server-side public key corresponds to (e.g., is identical to, is related to, or produces) the public-key in use in the SSL session to the server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Merrill in the image processing apparatus of Sato by prompting access by authentication using pass key corresponding to the public key. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to decode encoded parts of digital signature and confirming validity of digital signature based upon a public key for digital authentication (Merrill, [Abstract]).
The combination of Sato-Merrill does not specifically teach the following, in the same field of endeavor Takahashi teaches:
when access to the user authentication unit from the information processing apparatus is made using an IP address in a state in which the user authentication unit is valid (Takahashi, discloses system and method for setting access information, see [Abstract]. And [0053] the access information includes the setting information, such as the IP address of the PC terminal 40 and the like, the authentication method for accessing to the PC terminal 40, the transmission source address which is used for the transmission of the data, and the account information for enabling the image forming apparatus 10 to access to the PC terminal 40. And [0057] In case that the image forming apparatus 10 sets the network setting for accessing to the PC terminal 40 in accordance with the access information 100, the IP address, the MASK, the GW and the like are set as the information of the access destination),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Takahashi in the image processing apparatus of Sato-Merrill by setting access information for authentication with IP address of PC terminal for access to the PC terminal. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to set network setting for accessing to data reception device in accordance with the access information used by data transmission device (Takahashi, [Abstract]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato-Merrill-Takahashi as applied above to claim 1, further in view of Ono et al (US20150047018A1, hereinafter, “Ono”).
Regarding claim 2, Sato-Merrill-Takahashi combination teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
The combination of Sato-Merrill-Takahashi does not specifically teach the following, in the same field of endeavor Ono teaches:
wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as a user authentication switching unit configured to switch a setting of validity/invalidity of the user authentication unit (Ono, discloses image processing apparatus with authenticating unit and controller, [Abstract]. And [0079] If the user performs operation for demanding ID-and-password authentication at a time point t41 (e.g., if the user operates the help button 144 on the screen in FIG. 8 so as to switch the screen of the display unit 14 from the screen in FIG. 8 to the screen in FIG. 10), the control unit 11 switches the enable signal from the on state (high state) to the off state (low state) and transmits the enable signal to the image processing unit 194. Thus, the face authentication process in the image processing unit 194 is suspended, and the authentication mode is switched to the ID-and-password authentication mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Ono in the image processing apparatus of Sato-Merrill-Takahashi by switching from on state to off state. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suspend the image processing when authentication mode is switched to ID-and-password authentication mode (Ono, [Abstract], [0079]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato-Merrill-Takahashi as applied above to claim 1, further in view of Ishimura (US20240411848A1, hereinafter, “Ishimura”).
Regarding claim 3, Sato-Merrill-Takahashi combination teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
The combination of Sato-Merrill-Takahashi does not specifically teach the following, in the same field of endeavor Ishimura teaches:
wherein, on the cooperation authentication screen, a URL link to the pass key authentication screen is displayed (Ishimura, discloses information processing for login based on access token, see [Abstract]. And [0086] In the information processing system according to (((2))), the processor is configured to, as a manner of providing the user with the authentication URL and the user code, cause a display to display an image including information on the authentication URL and the user code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Ishimura in the image processing apparatus of Sato-Merrill-Takahashi by displaying information on authentication URL and user code. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide user with authentication URL in display and allow user to access image processing apparatus upon login with access token (Ishimura, [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 4, Sato-Merrill-Takahashi-Ishimura combination teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 3,
Ishimura further teaches: wherein, when the URL link is pressed, the pass key authentication screen is displayed ([0054] The user starts up the Web browser on the terminal apparatus 300A and accesses the authorization server 200 using the extracted authorization URL. The user enters the user code extracted from the credential information and the authentication information on the user (the user ID and password). The terminal apparatus 300A makes the authentication request by transmitting the entered user code and authentication information to the authorization server 200 (S15)). Same motivation as presented in claim 3 would apply.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato-Merrill-Takahashi as applied above to claim 1, further in view of Lee (US20100281146A1, hereinafter, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 5, Sato-Merrill-Takahashi combination teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
The combination of Sato-Merrill-Takahashi does not specifically teach the following, in the similar field of endeavor Lee teaches:
wherein a setting regarding whether to perform auto registration in a DNS is enabled in the state in which the user authentication unit is valid (Lee, discloses system and method for automatic registration to dynamic DNS, see [Abstract]. And [0024] Once the account information is input and stored, a DDNS client 210 built in the network device 21 is enabled. The DDNS client 210 automatically connects to a corresponding dynamic DNS 22 through Internet 1 and sends a registration signal automatically to accomplish registration (Step 292)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Lee in the image processing apparatus of Sato-Merrill-Takahashi by enabling DDNS client for automatic DNS registration. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to automatically and continuously register network device with updated IP address (Lee, [Abstract], [0008]).
Regarding claim 6, Sato-Merrill-Takahashi-Lee combination teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 5,
Lee further teaches: wherein, when the auto registration in the DNS is set, a host name and an IP address are registered in the DNS ([Abstract] The registered network device continuously updates an IP address automatically for the dynamic DNS. And [0024] After Step 293 is finished, any user equipment (UE) on the Internet can access the network device 21 using the hostname in the above account information). Same motivation as presented in claim 5 would apply.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato-Merrill-Takahashi as applied above to claim 1, further in view of Shastri et al (US20170118025A1, hereinafter, “Shastri”).
Regarding claim 7, Sato-Merrill-Takahashi combination teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
The combination of Sato-Merrill-Takahashi does not specifically teach the following, in the same field of endeavor Shastri teaches:
wherein, when the user authentication unit performs the authentication successfully, identification information of the information processing apparatus is registered in a passwordless login completion device list, and wherein, when access to the user authentication unit is made using an IP address and the identification information is included in the passwordless login completion device list, redirection to a URL on the pass key authentication screen is performed (Shastri, discloses system and method for password-less authentication for access management, see [Title]/[Abstract]. And [0055] For OAM protected resources, user requests can be authenticated and then directed to URLs associated with the requested resources. And [0065] Client 204 may be a device that facilitates registration of other trusted devices, such as client 202. Client 204 may provide an interface to enable clients 202, 204 to be registered for password-less authentication. At step 220, client 204 may send a request to access management system 140 to be registered as a trusted device. In some embodiments, the request may include information about client 204, such as device information or information about an application through which the resource is requested. Such information may be determined based on factors like browser version, plugins etc. The request may include the geo-location of the user from the IP address of the browser).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Shastri in the image processing apparatus of Sato-Merrill-Takahashi by enabling password-less authentication DNS registration by registration of devices and/or a location as trusted. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to ensure that a user associated with the device is legitimate as a previously authenticated user (Shastri, [Abstract], [0011]).
Claims 8-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US20180341759A1, hereinafter, “Sato”), in view of Lee (US20100281146A1, hereinafter, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 8, similarly claim 10, claim 12, Sato teaches:
An image processing apparatus comprising at least one processor or circuit configured to function as/A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program comprising instructions for executing following processes of/A system including an image processing apparatus and an information processing apparatus, wherein the information processing apparatus comprises at least one processor or circuit configured to function as (Sato, discloses image processing apparatus communicates with a user's mobile terminal that includes an authentication module for biometric authentication as FIDO authentication, see [Abstract]. See Fig. 2A, 2B, 2C, CPU, Storage device 224, and Fig. 3 Authenticator):
a user authentication unit configured to perform user authentication by receiving a digital signature from an information processing apparatus through HTTP communication and verifying the digital signature using a public key stored in advance in association with an identifier of a user (e.g., [0009] an authentication module to perform biometric authentication, transmit, when the authentication module included in the mobile terminal is identified as the authentication module to perform biometric authentication, the verification data to the mobile terminal, and transmit, in a case where signature data generated by using the secret key stored in the storage area of the mobile terminal and the verification data is returned in response to a success of authentication processing of the user by the authentication module of the mobile terminal, the signature data to an issuer of the verification data, wherein, in a case where the signature data is verified by the issuer of the verification data by using a public key corresponding to the secret key. Also Fig. 1, and [0027] The system includes a multifunction peripheral (MFP) 101 that is an example of an image processing apparatus, a mobile terminal 102 that is owned by a user, a print system 103 that is an example of a service provision system, and a client personal computer (PC) 104 (i.e., information processing apparatus). And [0102] The authentication request data 1110 includes the authentication parameters 1100 generated by the print service 370, a print service ID 1112, and a web origin 1113. The web origin 1113 is the origin of the print service 370. The print service ID 1112 stores information about the top- and second-level domains of the print service 370. For example, if the URL of the print service 370 is http://www.pull-print.com);
While Sato teaches the image processing apparatus shown above but does not specifically teach the following, in the similar field of endeavor Lee teaches:
and a DNS registration setting unit configured to set whether to perform auto registration in a DNS in a state in which the user authentication unit is valid (Lee, discloses system and method for automatic registration to dynamic DNS, see [Abstract]. And [0024] Once the account information is input and stored, a DDNS client 210 built in the network device 21 is enabled. The DDNS client 210 automatically connects to a corresponding dynamic DNS 22 through Internet 1 and sends a registration signal automatically to accomplish registration (Step 292)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Lee in the image processing apparatus of Sato by enabling DDNS client for automatic DNS registration. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to automatically and continuously register network device with updated IP address (Lee, [Abstract], [0008]).
Regarding claim 9, Sato-Lee combination teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 8,
Lee further teaches: wherein, when the DNS registration setting unit is set to perform auto registration in the DNS, a host name and an IP address are registered in the DNS ([Abstract] The registered network device continuously updates an IP address automatically for the dynamic DNS. And [0024] After Step 293 is finished, any user equipment (UE) on the Internet can access the network device 21 using the hostname in the above account information). Same motivation as presented in claim 8 would apply.
Citation of References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action:
Rhee (US20140129828A1) discloses method user authentication using a self-signed certificate of a web server.
Jose et al (US20240283657A1) discloses systems and methods for dynamic authentication and identification to protected resource with userID-less and password-less authentication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1975.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on (571) 272-4219. The fax phone 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights