DETAILED ACTION
A response to the notice of non-compliant amendment was received on 05 March 2026. By this response, Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 16 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 15 and 17 were previously withdrawn from further consideration as drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1-12, 14, and 16 are currently under examination in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 September 2025 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Specification
The objection to the specification for failure to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification includes minor grammatical and other errors. For example, in paragraph 0025, line 3, the phrase “to external by broadcast” is not in clear idiomatic English and appears to be missing critical language such as a noun after “external”. In paragraph 0028, line 12, it appears that “WPA3-incomatible” is intended to read “WPA3-incompatible”.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 8, lines 2 and 4, “Mode” should read “mode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1-12, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. The rejection of Claims 1-12, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is NOT withdrawn, because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
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, 14, and 16 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 response” in line 11; however, the claim previously referred to receiving a response from each respective external device that received the request, and because there are potentially plural responses, it is not clear to which of the plural responses this limitation is intended to refer. It appears that this may be intended to refer to a respective response from the respective external device. The claim further recites “receives an instruction for establishing a first connection with a specific external device which received the request via the communication interface” in lines 15-17. It is not clear what the phrase “via the communication interface” is intended to modify; that is, it is not clear if the request is received via the communication device, the first connection is established via the communication interface, or the instruction is received via the communication interface. The claim additionally recites “the communication device receives first standard information as the respective standard information in the response from each respective external device that received the request and the communication device does not receive second standard information as the respective standard information in the response from each respective external device that received the request” in lines 18-23. Similar to the above, it is not clear to which of the plural responses the phrase “the response” is intended to refer, although it appears that these may be intended to refer to respective responses from each respective external device. The claim also recites “the communication device receives the first standard information as the respective standard information in the response from a first sub-set of the plurality of external devices and the communication device receives the second standard information as the respective standard information in the response from a second sub-set of the plurality of external devices” in lines 25-29. The phrases “the response from a first sub-set” and “the response from a second sub-set” are not clear as to whether there is one single response from all of the external devices in the first sub-set as a group or if each device in the first sub-set provides its own respective response, and similarly for the second sub-set. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “the response” in lines 4 and 5. It is not clear to which of the plural responses these limitations are intended to refer, although it appears that these may be intended to refer to each respective response.
Claim 12 recites “the specific external device subject to the instruction” in lines 6-7. Although the claims recited a specific external device, there is not clear antecedent basis for a device “subject to the instruction”. The claim further recites “the specific external device” in line 9. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the specific external device that received the request in Claim 1 or the specific external device subject to the instruction in Claim 12, if these are distinct.
Claim 16 recites that the device is caused to perform several functions (broadcast a request, received a response, change a state) in lines 11-27; however, there is not a conjunction (e.g. “and” or “or”) between these recited functions, and therefore, it is not clear whether they are all required or if any are optional or alternatives. The claim further recites “the response” in line 14; however, the claim previously referred to receiving a response from each respective external device that received the request, and because there are potentially plural responses, it is not clear to which of the plural responses this limitation is intended to refer. It appears that this may be intended to refer to a respective response from the respective external device. The claim further recites “receives an instruction for establishing a first connection with a specific external device which received the request via the communication interface” in lines 18-21. It is not clear what the phrase “via the communication interface” is intended to modify; that is, it is not clear if the request is received via the communication device, the first connection is established via the communication interface, or the instruction is received via the communication interface. The claim additionally recites “the communication device receives first standard information as the respective standard information in the request from each respective external device that received the request and the communication device does not receive second standard information as the respective standard information in the response from each respective external device that received the request” in lines 22-27. First, there is not clear antecedent basis for “the request from each external device”, as the request is sent to the external devices rather than received from the external devices. Further, similar to the above, it is not clear to which of the plural responses the phrase “the response” is intended to refer, although it appears that these may be intended to refer to respective responses from each respective external device. The claim also recites “the communication device receives the first standard information as the respective standard information in the response from a first sub-set of the plurality of external devices and the communication device receives the second standard information as the respective standard information in the response from a second sub-set of the plurality of external devices” in lines 29-33. The phrases “the response from a first sub-set” and “the response from a second sub-set” are not clear as to whether there is one single response from all of the external devices in the first sub-set as a group or if each device in the first sub-set provides its own respective response, and similarly for the second sub-set. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claims not specifically referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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)(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 1-12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nishida, US Patent 12015979 (cited in the previous Office action).
In reference to Claim 1, Nishida discloses a communication device including a communication interface, operation unit, and controller (Figure 3, apparatus 200, wireless communication section 220 corresponds to communication interface, operation section 240 corresponds to operation section, and processing section 210 corresponds to controller) configured to broadcast a request to one or more external devices, receive a respective response from each respective external device that received the request, and change a state of the communication device from a first state to a different second state, where the use of first and second connections are permitted in the first state and where the use of first connections is permitted but the use of second connections is not permitted in the second state, in a case where all responses to the request include first standard information indicating support for a first communication standard and do not include second standard information indicating support for a second communication standard or maintain a state of the communication device in the first state if responses from a first subset of external devices include the first standard information and responses from a second subset of external devices include the second standard information (see Figure 4 and column 6, line 37-column 7, line 10, where when the terminal supports WPA3 and the access point only supports WPA2, the printer can communicate directly with the terminal via WPA3 and communicates with the access point using WPA2).
In reference to Claims 2 and 3, Nishida further discloses changing the state before or after the connection is established (see Figure 6, for example).
In reference to Claims 4 and 14, Nishida further discloses changing to the first state in response to an instruction or powering on (column 6, line 37-column 7, line 10).
In reference to Claim 5, Nishida further discloses access points and wireless connections (see Figure 4).
In reference to Claim 6, Nishida further discloses that the responses include an SSID and changing or maintaining the state based on the SSID (column 10, line 49-column 11, line 4).
In reference to Claims 7-11, Nishida further discloses that the first standard is newer than the second and the first state includes modes that are backward compatible, using first and second authentication schemes or hash functions (column 6, line 37-column 7, line 10, WPA3 newer than WPA2, for example, and having multiple modes and authentication schemes).
In reference to Claim 12, Nishida further discloses an image process executing unit that executes an image process according to a request (Figure 3, printing section 250; Figure 5, S108 and S112, execute job).
Claim 16 is directed to a computer-readable medium storing instructions for a communication device having functionality corresponding to the device of Claim 1, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sugawara, US Patent 12574839, discloses an apparatus that connects to access points based on what standards are supported.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
