DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 14 dated by 04/01/2025 are presently pending in the application and have been examined below, of which claims 1, 13 and 14 are presented in independent form.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/01/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/01/2025 and 07/31/2025, have been considered. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, initialed and dated copies of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 filed as stated above are attached to the instant Office Action.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, non-statutory
(Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Statutory Category:
Independent claims 1, 13 and 14 each are directed to a device, a method, and a medium respectively. Therefore, claims 1 – 14 fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong 1 Judicial exception:
Limitations of independent claims have been identified as elements or part of the abstract idea itself. The claims recite steps or structural elements performing:
a connection control unit configured to control the electronic device to connect with a network communicable with a specific external system; (claim 1, 13, 14);
a display control unit configured to perform control to display a reception screen for receiving an operation representing user agreement with a permission matter regarding transmission of information from the electronic device to a transmission destination (claim 1, 13, 14)
The above limitations appear to recite structural elements and/or steps qualifying as those organizing human activity, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
According to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Section II B. Commercial or Legal Interactions, where it examples “claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction in the form of a legal obligation” as a Mental Process.
A human being may mentally perform actions like control of user agreement reception with permissions, or permissions for further transmission of information.
The recited limitations are qualified as certain methods or system elements of organizing human activity
MPEP states that it is still a Mental Process if the action is performed on a computer (emphases added):
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
See: MPEP2106.04(a)2.III Mental Processes.
Step 2A Prong 2 Integration into a practical application:
The limitations recited in claims 1, 13, 14 list several system elements and/or operational steps which are not integrated into a practical application. They may be considered as those of better organizing human activity, but they fail to be integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Significantly more: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The above identified claim limitations have been identified as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), II. When taken individually or viewed as an ordered combination the claims as a whole do not appear to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a
patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed
published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names
another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention
Claims 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated Farley et al. (US 20250077654) (hereafter Farley).
As per claim 1 Farley discloses: An electronic device comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor and/or at least one circuit which function as:
a connection control unit configured to control the electronic device to connect with a network communicable with a specific external system (Farley, in para. [0001, 0009, 0017, 0041], Figs. 3.1, 3.3, 3.4 discloses information handling system, IHS [0001, 0041] and virtual baseboard management controller, vBMC [0009], comprising all standard hardware elements and software modules to control and operate communication in a networking system); and
a display control unit configured to perform control to display a reception screen for receiving an operation representing user agreement with a permission matter regarding transmission of information from the electronic device to a transmission destination (Farley, in para. [0022, 0092], discloses operations of the vBMC control unit configured for controlling data processing in the system according to the user-server agreement, the service level agreement, SLA, including data transmission between specified system elements and other locations)
based on the electronic device being connected with the network by the connection control unit, and not to display the reception screen in a case where the electronic device is not connected with the network (Farley, in para. [0101], discloses data processing in the system including visualization of specified information, i.e., implementing displays to permit or not the operations).
As per claim 2 Farley discloses: The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the display control unit performs control to: in a case where an operation for returning to a home screen is received while the electronic device is connected with the network, communicate with the specific external system and check whether the permission matter has been updated, and in a case where the permission matter has not been updated, display a home screen, and in a case where the permission matter has been updated, display a reception screen for receiving an operation representing user agreement with the updated permission matter (Farley, in para. [0100], discloses regulations and respective operations of communications between users and other clients, i.e., specific external systems, based on relevant permissions).
As per claim 3 Farley discloses: The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the display control unit performs control to display, on the reception screen, information indicating a uniform resource locator, URL, for displaying a permission matter stored in a server without displaying the permission matter (Farley, in para. [0092], discloses operations of the vBMC control unit configured for controlling data processing in the system according to the user-server agreement, the service level agreement, SLA, including access control and operations to specified recourses and their locations).
As per claim 4 Farley discloses: The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the at least one processor and/or the at least one circuit further function as a saving unit configured to save, in a case where an operation representing agreement has been received on the reception screen, information indicating that the operation representing the agreement has been received (Farley, in para. [0022, 0092], discloses operations of the vBMC control unit configured for controlling data processing in the system according to the user-server agreement, the service level agreement, SLA).
As per claim 5 Farley discloses: The electronic device according to claim 4, wherein, in a case where an operation representing agreement has been received on the reception screen, the saving unit saves the information indicating that the operation representing the agreement has been received, in association with a version of the permission matter (Farley, in para. [0108], discloses operations of the system control plane manager, SCPM, controlling the respective operations based on respective permissions).
As per claim 6 Farley discloses: The electronic device according to claim 4, wherein the display control unit performs control to, in a case where the information indicating that the operation representing the agreement has been received is saved, communicate with the specific external system and check whether the permission matter has been updated, and, in a case where the permission matter has been updated, display a reception screen for receiving an operation representing user agreement with the updated permission matter (Farley, in para. [0182], discloses functions of the baseboard manager controller, BMC, comprising update module to perform updates of respective components).
As per claim 7 Farley discloses: The electronic device according to claim 4, wherein, in a case where an operation representing disagreement has been received on the reception screen, the saving unit saves information indicating that the operation representing the disagreement has been received, and wherein, in a case where the information indicating that the operation representing disagreement has been received is saved, the display control unit performs control not to display the reception screen (Farley, in para. [0022, 0092], discloses operations of the vBMC control unit configured for controlling data processing in the system according to the user-server agreement, the service level agreement, SLA, including operations in a case of disagreement, i.e., beyond the SLA [0212]).
As per claim 8 Farley discloses: The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the display control unit performs control to display a home screen after performing control to display the reception screen (Farley, in para. [0101], discloses data processing in the system including visualization of specified information, i.e., implementing displays to permit or not the operations).
As per claim 9 Farley discloses: The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where a network setting has been changed from disabled to enabled, the connection control unit controls the electronic device to connect with the network, and the display control unit performs control to receive an operation for returning to a home screen, and, in a case where the permission matter has been updated, display the home screen after displaying the reception screen (Farley, in para. [0009] discloses the virtual baseboard management controller, vBMC [0009], comprising all standard hardware elements and software modules to control and operate communication in a networking system, e.g., enable or disable the specified connections)
As per claim 10 Farley discloses: The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the permission matter is a permission text (Farley, in para. [0179], discloses data processing in the system based on respective permissions including one-time-write of data).
As per claim 11 Farley discloses: The electronic device according to claim 10, wherein the permission text is stored in the specific external system, and updated in response to function addition or law amendment. (Farley, in para. [0179], discloses data processing in the system based on respective permissions including one-time-write of data and storage in a memory).
As per claim 12 Farley discloses: The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the electronic device is a printer that can execute print processing (Farley, in para. [0285], discloses computing system including printers with relevant data processing).
As per claim 13, claim 13 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
As per claim 14, claim 14 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 13, i.e., claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Rathod US_20250379933, Jacobsson US_20200196110, Peterson US_20150281003, Tokuchi US_11496478.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADIMIR IVANOVICH GAVRILENKO whose telephone number is (313)446-6530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/VLADIMIR I GAVRILENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights