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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 are pending in this application.
Oath/Declaration
The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Drawings
6. The receipt of Drawings is acknowledged.
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 1-23 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "connected to the Internet" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please change ***connected to the Internet***to ***connected to Internet***.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "connected to the Internet" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please change ***connected to the Internet***to ***connected to Internet***.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "connected to the Internet" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please change ***connected to the Internet***to ***connected to Internet***.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "connected to the Internet" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please change ***connected to the Internet***to ***connected to Internet***.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 15, 19 and 20 are objected to but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) Claim Rejection.
14. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1:
The prior art(s) searched, cited and/or of record fails to explicitly teach, disclose or suggest the teaching(s) of:
“in a case where the operation data is uploaded to the cloud storage, the image forming device downloads the operation data from the cloud storage, executes a process based on the operator specified by the operation data, and executes an image forming process as a process corresponding to the operator in a case where the operator specified by the operation data is an operator related to image formation,
in a case where an event that changes the content of the remote operation screen displayed on the information processing device according to the remote operation program occurs, the image forming device executes the image upload process to upload the image data indicating the remote operation screen after a change caused by the event to the cloud storage, and
in a case where the image data indicating the remote operation screen after the change is uploaded to the cloud storage, the instructions included in the remote operation program cause the information processing device to execute the screen display process, and in the screen display process, the information processing device downloads the image data indicating the remote operation screen after the change from the cloud storage and displays the remote operation screen after the change on the user interface using the browser.”, in addition to all the limitations as required by the independent claim 1.
In the primary prior art cited but not relied upon, Takahashi (US PG. Pub. 2014/0218763 A1) teaches in Fig. 1, Sect. [0039]-[0040], The information processing terminal 3 may also become functional as a remote panel for image processing device 2 by making communication with the image processing device 2 through the network 5. The information processing terminal 3 is not limited to a portable terminal such as a tablet terminal or a smartphone but it may also be composed of a personal computer (PC), for example. The cloud server 4 is placed on the Internet, for example, and provides various cloud services through the Internet. In the first preferred embodiment, the cloud server 4 is described as a server that provides translation service of translating text data in a specific language input through the network 5 into a different language, for example. The cloud server 4 can communicate with each of the information processing terminal 3 and the image processing device 2 through the network 5. The cloud server 4 executes a translation job of translating text data based on an order given from each of the information processing terminal 3 and the image processing device 2.
In the secondary prior art cited but not relied upon, Pinney (US PG. Pub. 2021/0303241 A1) discloses in Sect. [0043], the user interface (UI) screen backend 503, 506, 509 may communicate with the cloud service module 536 and the MFP print and/or scan modules 534. For example, the user interface (UI) screen backend 503, 506, 509 may obtain cloud service settings from the user interface (UI) (for example, which file to print), obtain print settings from the UI (for example, color, duplex, number of copies, etc.), fetch the file from the cloud service using the cloud service settings, then send the file and print settings to the MFP print module 534 for printing. Alternatively, the user interface screen backend 503, 506, 509 could obtain cloud-related settings 560 from the user interface (UI) 340 (for example, directory location to store file on cloud service, filename, etc.), scan settings 556 from the graphical user interface (GUI) 340, (for example, color, JPG file format, etc.), supply scan settings to the MFP scan module 534 to start a scan, receive a scanned file from the MFP scan module 534, and upload the file to the cloud service using the cloud-related settings. During processing, in response to progress and status information from the various modules 532, 534, 536, the UI screen (i.e., graphical user interface) backend 503, 506, 509 may update the UI screen 340 displayed to the user 42 (for example, file download/upload from cloud service 10% complete or failed, not enough storage space on cloud service, network timeout, etc.).
In particular, the closest applied reference of Takahashi fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious the claimed subject matter of independent claim 1. Also, secondary prior art of Pinney does not remedy the deficiencies required by claim 1 as follows:
“in a case where the operation data is uploaded to the cloud storage, the image forming device downloads the operation data from the cloud storage, executes a process based on the operator specified by the operation data, and executes an image forming process as a process corresponding to the operator in a case where the operator specified by the operation data is an operator related to image formation,
in a case where an event that changes the content of the remote operation screen displayed on the information processing device according to the remote operation program occurs, the image forming device executes the image upload process to upload the image data indicating the remote operation screen after a change caused by the event to the cloud storage, and
in a case where the image data indicating the remote operation screen after the change is uploaded to the cloud storage, the instructions included in the remote operation program cause the information processing device to execute the screen display process, and in the screen display process, the information processing device downloads the image data indicating the remote operation screen after the change from the cloud storage and displays the remote operation screen after the change on the user interface using the browser.”, since both Takahashi and Pinney fail to teach a multi-functional system including image print device and information processing unit connected by an network internet connection for image data transfer and information upload/download processing from stored data in a cloud storage for remote data display and content control where the image data indicating a remote operation screen after the change is uploaded to the cloud storage, the instructions included in the remote operation program cause the information processing device to execute the screen display process, and in the screen display process, the information processing device downloads the image data indicating the remote operation screen after the change from the cloud storage and displays the remote operation screen after the change on the user interface using the browser as suggested by the claim.
Regarding Claim 19:
The prior art(s) searched, cited and/or of record fails to explicitly teach, disclose or suggest the teaching(s) of:
in a case where the image forming device starts providing the second remote operation by executing the program reply process after receiving the start instruction of the second remote operation, the image forming device enters a second remote operation providing state until an ending condition of the second remote operation is satisfied,
the image forming device is configured to start providing the second remote operation in a case where the image forming device receives the start instruction of the second remote operation from the second information processing device in the first remote operation providing state, and
the image forming device is configured to start providing the first remote operation in a case where the image forming device receives the start instruction of the first remote operation from the first information processing device in the second remote operation providing state.”, in addition to all the limitations as required by the independent claim 19.
In the primary prior art cited but not relied upon, Takahashi (US PG. Pub. 2014/0218763 A1) teaches in Fig. 1, Sect. [0039]-[0040], The information processing terminal 3 may also become functional as a remote panel for image processing device 2 by making communication with the image processing device 2 through the network 5. The information processing terminal 3 is not limited to a portable terminal such as a tablet terminal or a smartphone but it may also be composed of a personal computer (PC), for example. The cloud server 4 is placed on the Internet, for example, and provides various cloud services through the Internet. In the first preferred embodiment, the cloud server 4 is described as a server that provides translation service of translating text data in a specific language input through the network 5 into a different language, for example. The cloud server 4 can communicate with each of the information processing terminal 3 and the image processing device 2 through the network 5. The cloud server 4 executes a translation job of translating text data based on an order given from each of the information processing terminal 3 and the image processing device 2.
In the secondary prior art cited but not relied upon, Pinney (US PG. Pub. 2021/0303241 A1) discloses in Sect. [0043], the user interface (UI) screen backend 503, 506, 509 may communicate with the cloud service module 536 and the MFP print and/or scan modules 534. For example, the user interface (UI) screen backend 503, 506, 509 may obtain cloud service settings from the user interface (UI) (for example, which file to print), obtain print settings from the UI (for example, color, duplex, number of copies, etc.), fetch the file from the cloud service using the cloud service settings, then send the file and print settings to the MFP print module 534 for printing. Alternatively, the user interface screen backend 503, 506, 509 could obtain cloud-related settings 560 from the user interface (UI) 340 (for example, directory location to store file on cloud service, filename, etc.), scan settings 556 from the graphical user interface (GUI) 340, (for example, color, JPG file format, etc.), supply scan settings to the MFP scan module 534 to start a scan, receive a scanned file from the MFP scan module 534, and upload the file to the cloud service using the cloud-related settings. During processing, in response to progress and status information from the various modules 532, 534, 536, the UI screen (i.e., graphical user interface) backend 503, 506, 509 may update the UI screen 340 displayed to the user 42 (for example, file download/upload from cloud service 10% complete or failed, not enough storage space on cloud service, network timeout, etc.).
In particular, the closest applied reference of Takahashi fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious the claimed subject matter of independent claim 19. Also, secondary prior art of Pinney does not remedy the deficiencies required by claim 19 as follows:
in a case where the image forming device starts providing the second remote operation by executing the program reply process after receiving the start instruction of the second remote operation, the image forming device enters a second remote operation providing state until an ending condition of the second remote operation is satisfied,
the image forming device is configured to start providing the second remote operation in a case where the image forming device receives the start instruction of the second remote operation from the second information processing device in the first remote operation providing state, and
the image forming device is configured to start providing the first remote operation in a case where the image forming device receives the start instruction of the first remote operation from the first information processing device in the second remote operation providing state.”, since both Takahashi and Pinney fail to teach a multi-functional system including image print device and information processing unit connected by an network internet connection with second imaging device and second information processing device where a second remote operation executes a program reply process after receiving a start instruction of the second remote operation and having the image forming device is configured to start providing the first remote operation in a case where the image forming device receives the start instruction of the first remote operation from the first information processing device in the second remote operation providing state as suggested by the claim.
15. Therefore, whether taken individually or in combination therof, the prior arts searched, cited and/or of record to include Takahashi and Pinney fails to explicitly teach the claimed limitation(s) as required by independent claims 1, 15, 19 and 20.
Independent claim 15 is essentially the same as Independent Claim 1 and refers to “An image forming device” similar “A system” in Claim 1; and is therefore allowed for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Independent claim 20 is essentially the same as Independent Claim 19 and refers to “An image forming device” similar “A system” in Claim 19; and is therefore allowed for the same reasons as applied to Claim 19 above.
18. It follows that dependent claims 2-14, 16-18 and 21-23 would also be inherently allowable for depending on an allowable base claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRYL V DOTTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5471. 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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached on 571-270-5254. 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.
/DARRYL V DOTTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
/DARRYL V DOTTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights