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 .
Claims 1-6 of this US application are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/20/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 6:
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “A processing apparatus”. The claim recites the processing apparatus comprising at least one controller (see [0024] in the current specification) and therefore is a machine.
Claim 6 recites “A processing method”. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 1 and 6 recite the limitations “updates” and “deletes” which specifically recite “updates the date and time attribute of the data acquired by the acquirer with a date and time acquired by the acquirer,” and “deletes data being present after a lapse of a predetermined period from a date and time of the date and time attribute among pieces of the data in the storage.” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other reciting a “processing apparatus”, a “storage” and at least one “controller”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “updates” and “deletes” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper generating a new version of date and time attribute by updating the date and time attribute acquired by an acquirer, and deleting data being present after a predetermined period from a date and time of the date and time attribute among pieces of the data in a storage. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims 1 and 6 recite the additional elements “an acquirer that acquires data including information of a date and time at which the data has been generated as a date and time attribute;” and “a storage that stores the acquired data;” The limitations amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims 1 and 6 recite the limitation “a storage that stores the acquired data;” The limitation amounts to well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g. storing and retrieving information in memory (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). As discussed above, the additional elements of using a “processing apparatus”, a “storage” and at least one “controller” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional elements “the acquirer acquires a file as data, the file includes an attribute in which a date and time at which the file has been saved at an acquisition destination is taken as a save date and time, and the at least one controller updates the save date and time of the file to a date and time acquired by the acquirer.” The limitations amount to a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception includes collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional element “the at least one controller deletes data being present after a lapse of a predetermined period from a date and time acquired by the acquirer among pieces of the data in the storage at a predetermined time interval set by a user” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on the claim 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional elements “the at least one controller adds flag information to data acquired by the acquirer to make the data become a non-deletion target, and does not delete, when deleting data stored in the storage at a predetermined time and in a case that the flag information to make the data become a non-deletion target is added, the data but updates the flag information to flag information that makes the data become a deletion target” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5:
Step 1:
Claim 5 recites “An image forming apparatus”. The claim recites the image forming apparatus comprising at least one controller (see [0024] in the current specification) and therefore is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 5 recite the limitations “forms”, “updates” and “deletes” which specifically recite “an image former that forms an image based on the content data;” “updates a date and time attribute of the data acquired by the acquirer with a date and time acquired by the acquirer,” and “deletes the content data being present after a lapse of a predetermined period from a date and time of the date and time attribute among pieces of the content data in the storage.” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other reciting an “image forming apparatus”, a “storage” and at least one “controller”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “forms”, “updates” and “deletes” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper generating an image based on content data, generating a new version of date and time attribute by updating the date and time attribute acquired by an acquirer, and deleting data being present after a predetermined period from a date and time of the date and time attribute among pieces of the data in a storage. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim 5 recites the additional elements “an acquirer that acquires content data including a date and time at which the data has been generated as attribute information;” and “a storage that stores the acquired content data;” The limitations amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 5 recites the limitation “a storage that stores the acquired content data;” The limitation amounts to well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g. storing and retrieving information in memory (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). As discussed above, the additional elements of using an “image forming apparatus”, a “storage” and at least one “controller” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hurley et al. (US 2012/0311096, hereinafter “Hurley”).
Regarding claim 1, Hurley teaches A processing apparatus comprising ([0019]: discussing about FIG. 1 is a block diagram that depicts an example system for causing files that originate from one computing device to be sent to one or more other computing devices):
an acquirer that acquires data including information of a date and time at which the data has been generated as a date and time attribute; a storage that stores the acquired data (Hurley, [0024]: Destination devices 150A-C are configured to receive and store a file that was transmitted from source device 110. [0069]: Additionally or alternatively, file retrieval data 230 may include information on a per-source basis. For example, each source device may be associated with a "source" table that has two columns: a file identifier column and a timestamp column. [0077]: The indication sent in step 310 may include identification data that identifies the particular file. Alternatively, push server 130 creates an identifier for the particular file. The identifier for the particular file may be based on one or more criteria, such as the particular file's name, an identity (e.g., name) of source device 110, date and time the particular file was created, and/or date and time the notification was received at push server 130.); and
at least one controller, wherein the at least one controller updates the date and time attribute of the data acquired by the acquirer with a date and time acquired by the acquirer (Hurley, [0069]: Push server 130 updates the row to indicate an identifier for the received file and a timestamp of when the file was received. When a destination device sends, to push server 130, a request for information about one or more files, push server 130 determines which source device(s) are associated with the destination device and analyzes the request for a "last-seen" timestamp.), and
deletes data being present after a lapse of a predetermined period from a date and time of the date and time attribute among pieces of the data in the storage (Hurley, [0100]: In an embodiment, files from source device 110 are stored by third-party storage service 140 (or push server 130) for a limited period of time, after which the files are deleted and, thus, no longer accessible to destination devices 150A-C, even if one or more of destination devices 150A-C (i.e., that are supposed to receive those files) have not yet received the files.).
Regarding claim 2, Hurley teaches wherein the acquirer acquires a file as data, the file includes an attribute in which a date and time at which the file has been saved at an acquisition destination is taken as a save date and time (Hurley, [0077]: The indication sent in step 310 may include identification data that identifies the particular file. Alternatively, push server 130 creates an identifier for the particular file. The identifier for the particular file may be based on one or more criteria, such as the particular file's name, an identity (e.g., name) of source device 110, date and time the particular file was created, and/or date and time the notification was received at push server 130.), and
the at least one controller updates the save date and time of the file to a date and time acquired by the acquirer (Hurley, [0069]: Push server 130 updates the row to indicate an identifier for the received file and a timestamp of when the file was received.).
Regarding claim 3, Hurley teaches the at least one controller deletes data being present after a lapse of a predetermined period from a date and time acquired by the acquirer among pieces of the data in the storage at a predetermined time interval set by a user ([0089] Additionally or alternatively, users of destination devices may establish one or more parameters that dictate when push server 130 is allowed to push. For example, a user may specify that all push notifications are to occur during a certain time of the day (e.g., between 2 AM and 5 AM), when usage of his/her destination device is below a particular threshold (e.g., 50% CPU), or when the destination device remains idle for more than a certain period of time (e.g., 30 minutes). [0120]: Thus, the period of time associated with a file may be established by push server 130 or source device 110 and enforced by third-party storage service 140. For example, push server 130 may send deletion time data to third-party storage service 140, which determines, based on the deletion time data, when to delete the particular file.).
Claim 6 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley in view of Hara (US 2021/0264503).
Regarding claim 4, Hurley teaches the apparatus of claim 3 as discussed above. Hurley does not explicitly teach the at least one controller adds flag information to data acquired by the acquirer to make the data become a non-deletion target, and does not delete, when deleting data stored in the storage at a predetermined time and in a case that the flag information to make the data become a non-deletion target is added, the data but updates the flag information to flag information that makes the data become a deletion target.
Hara teaches the at least one controller adds flag information to data acquired by the acquirer to make the data become a non-deletion target, and does not delete, when deleting data stored in the storage at a predetermined time and in a case that the flag information to make the data become a non-deletion target is added, the data but updates the flag information to flag information that makes the data become a deletion target (Hara, [0081]: The deletion flag is 1-bit data for identifying whether the purchase record is in a deleted state. In an embodiment, the deletion flag of the purchase record in the deleted state is set to “1”, and the deletion flag of the purchase record in a non-deleted state is set to “0”.).
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 file management of Hurley with the teaching about the deletion flag of Hara because it would prevent accidental data loss, ensure referential integrity, and maintain historical reporting accuracy.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley in view of Arifuku (US 2021/0264503).
Regarding claim 5, Hurley teaches An apparatus comprising:
an acquirer that acquires content data including a date and time at which the data has been generated as attribute information; a storage that stores the acquired content data (Hurley, [0024]: Destination devices 150A-C are configured to receive and store a file that was transmitted from source device 110. [0069]: Additionally or alternatively, file retrieval data 230 may include information on a per-source basis. For example, each source device may be associated with a "source" table that has two columns: a file identifier column and a timestamp column. [0077]: The indication sent in step 310 may include identification data that identifies the particular file. Alternatively, push server 130 creates an identifier for the particular file. The identifier for the particular file may be based on one or more criteria, such as the particular file's name, an identity (e.g., name) of source device 110, date and time the particular file was created, and/or date and time the notification was received at push server 130.); and
at least one controller, wherein the at least one controller updates a date and time attribute of the data acquired by the acquirer with a date and time acquired by the acquirer (Hurley, [0069]: Push server 130 updates the row to indicate an identifier for the received file and a timestamp of when the file was received. When a destination device sends, to push server 130, a request for information about one or more files, push server 130 determines which source device(s) are associated with the destination device and analyzes the request for a "last-seen" timestamp.), and
deletes the content data being present after a lapse of a predetermined period from a date and time of the date and time attribute among pieces of the content data in the storage (Hurley, [0100]: In an embodiment, files from source device 110 are stored by third-party storage service 140 (or push server 130) for a limited period of time, after which the files are deleted and, thus, no longer accessible to destination devices 150A-C, even if one or more of destination devices 150A-C (i.e., that are supposed to receive those files) have not yet received the files.).
Hurley does not explicitly teach an image forming apparatus; and an image former that forms an image based on the content data.
Arifuku teaches an image forming apparatus; and an image former that forms an image based on the content data (Arifuku, [0037]: The image former 19 forms an image based on the image data input from the image inputter 17).
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 file management of Hurley with the teaching about the image former of Arifuku because it would allow to automate resizing, rotating, cropping, and converting thousands of images at once.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Handy Bosma et al. (US 2020/0293679) discloses that defined data retention time period 246 represents a predetermined amount of time that data deletion manager 218 will retain copy of personal data 228 in structured data store 224. In other words, at expiration of defined data retention time period 246, data deletion manager 218 will permanently delete or erase copy of personal data 228 from structured data store 224. Defined data retention time period 246 may be, for example, 30 days ([0037]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm 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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
May 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights