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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 23, 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims received on December 23, 2025 has been entered.
The amendment of claims 1-3, 7, 8, 13-20 and 22 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1, 19-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi’129 (US 2005/0105129), and further in view of Morita’960 (US 2016/0352960).
With respect to claim 1, Takahashi’129 teaches a processing apparatus comprising [regarding to the combination of the host computer (Fig.1, item 103) and MFP (Fig.1, item 102)]:
a processor (Fig.2, item 2206 and paragraph 77) programmed to:
reference host device information that represents first device attributes provided to a host device and different device information that represents second device attributes provided to a different device [As shown in Fig.9, the functions associated with the MFP is considered as the first device attributes and the function associated with the provider A is considered as the second device attributes (Fig.8, step S5127 and paragraph 140)];
and extract, from the characteristic information, one or more of the first device attributes associated with a function to be executed by the user [The functions from the function table is considered being extracted in order to display (Fig.8, steps S5127 and S5128)],
wherein the processor is programmed to notify the user, in a case where there are a plurality of first device attributes extracted from the characteristic information, of the one or more first device attributes extracted from the characteristic information that are associated with a with the function to be executed by the user [The functions from the function table is considered being extracted in order to display (Fig.8, steps S5127 and S5128). As shown in Fig.9, the function table includes the functions associated with the MFP (the first device). When the functions associated with the MFP (the first device) are being displayed on a display, a user is considered being notified].
Takahashi’129 does not teach notify a user that uses the host device of the first device attributes that are not provided to the different device as characteristic information on the host device; to present the one or more first device attributes to the user in accordance with an order determined in advance for each of the first device attributes, and wherein the presentation of the one or more first device attributes is further based on a weight assigned to each of the one or more first device attributes.
Since Takahashi’129 has suggested that the function table (Fig.9) includes the functions associated with the MFP (the first device) and other server provider (the different devices) and it is being obtained by the MFP and then the MFP displaying the functions associated with the obtains function table (Fig.8, steps S5127, S5134, S5128), therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to display (notify) the functions including the functions provided in the MFP which is not provided in the other server provider (the different devices) according to the function table (notify a user that uses the host device of the first device attributes that are not provided to the different device as characteristic information on the host device) because this will allow a print job to be configured more effectively in the MFP.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takahashi’129 to display (notify) the functions including the functions provided in the MFP which is not provided in the other server provider (the different devices) according to the function table (notify a user that uses the host device of the first device attributes that are not provided to the different device as characteristic information on the host device) because this will allow a print job to be configured more effectively in the MFP.
The modification of Takahashi’129 does not teach to present the one or more first device attributes to the user in accordance with an order determined in advance for each of the first device attributes, and wherein the presentation of the one or more first device attributes is further based on a weight assigned to each of the one or more first device attributes.
Morita’960 teaches to present the one or more first device attributes to the user in accordance with an order determined in advance for each of the first device attributes [each function indicated in the function introducing information is displayed so as to arrange the functions in the priority order (Fig. 15 and paragraph 129)], and
wherein the presentation of the one or more first device attributes is further based on a weight assigned to each of the one or more first device attributes [each function indicated in the function introducing information is displayed so as to arrange the functions in the priority order (Fig. 15 and paragraph 129)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takahashi’129 according to the teaching of Morita’960 to arrange the functions in the priority order and then to display them on a display of an MFP because this will allow the desired functions for a print job to be selected more effectively.
With respect to claim 19, it is a method claim. Claim 19 is analyzed and rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 20, it is a claim regarding to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing thereon a computer program. Claims 20 is rejected for the same manner as described in the rejected claim 1.
With respect to claim 21, which further limits claim 1, Minami’661 teaches wherein the function to be executed includes a copy function (paragraph 78) and a print function (paragraph 67).
With respect to claim 22, which further limits claim 1, Minami’661 teaches wherein the one or more first device attributes presented to the user for the copy function is different from the one or more first device attributes presented to the user for the print function (Fig.7A and Fig.11A).
With respect to claim 24, it is a claim regarding to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing thereon a computer program. Claims 24 is rejected for the same manner as described in the rejected claim 21
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi’129 (US 2005/0105129), Morita’960 (US 2016/0352960) and further in view of Naoki’573 (JP 11-242573).
With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 does not teach wherein the processor is programed to notify the user that uses the host device of the one or more first device attribute represented by the host device information, a number of the different devices that have the one or more first device attribute being equal to or less than a number determined in advance, as the characteristic information.
Naoki’573 teaches wherein the processor is programed to notify the user that uses the host device of the one or more first device attribute represented by the host device information, a number of the different devices that have the one or more first device attribute being equal to or less than a number determined in advance, as the characteristic information [an error message having the number of available printers to perform operations is being provided to a user when the selected printer (host device) is not able to process a print job (Fig.16). The number of available printers to perform operations is considered equal to or less than a number determined in advance when no new printer is being added to a network].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 according to the teaching of Naoki’573 to notify a user a number of available printers to perform an interrupted job because this will allow the interrupted job to be processed more effectively.
With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 2, the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 does not teach wherein the processor is programed to change the one or more device attributes, of which the user is to be notified, in accordance with a function to be executed by the user.
Naoki’573 teaches wherein the processor is configured to change the one or more device attributes, of which the user is to be notified, in accordance with a function to be executed by the user [an error message having the number of available printers to perform operations is being provided to a user when the selected printer (host device) is not able to process a print job (Fig.16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to determine the number of available printers having the desired functions to process a job when the said job is not able to be processed by an original designated printer and to provide an error message having the determined number of available printers having the desired functions to process a job to a user because this will allow the interrupted job to be processed more effectively].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 according to the teaching of Naoki’573 to notify a user a number of available printers to perform an interrupted job because this will allow the interrupted job to be processed more effectively.
With respect to claim 15, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 does not teach wherein the processor is programed to notify the user that uses the host device of the first device attributes that are represented by the host device information and that are not included in the characteristic information as similar information that represents the one or more first device attributes also provided to the different device.
Naoki’573 teaches wherein the processor is programed to notify the user that uses the host device of the first device attributes that are represented by the host device information and that are not included in the characteristic information as similar information that represents the one or more first device attributes also provided to the different device [an error message having the number of available printers to perform operations is being provided to a user when the selected printer (host device) is not able to process a print job (Fig.16). Therefore, the characteristic information of the available printers is considered not being included in the characteristic information of the original selected printer (host device)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 according to the teaching of Naoki’573 to notify a user a number of available printers to perform an interrupted job because this will allow the interrupted job to be processed more effectively.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi’129 (US 2005/0105129), Morita’960 (US 2016/0352960) further in view of Aoki’542 (US 2014/0063542).
With respect to claim 7, which further claim 1, the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 does not teach wherein the processor is programed to display the one or more first device attributes associated with the function on a screen in correlation with an image that simulates an appearance of the host device.
Aoki’542 teaches wherein the processor is programed to display the one or more first device attributes associated with the function on a screen in correlation with an image that simulates an appearance of the host device (Fig.11C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 according to the teaching of Aoki’542 to provide an image associated with the MFP along with characteristic information of the said MFP on a display because this will allow a user to designate a desired MFP more effectively.
With respect to claim 13, which further limits claim 7, the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 does not teach wherein the processor is programed to display a position of the host device associated with the one or more first device attributes from the characteristic information as indicated in the image on the screen.
Aoki’542 teaches wherein the processor is programed to display a position of the host device associated with the one or more first device attributes from the characteristic information as indicated in the image on the screen (Fig. 11C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 according to the teaching of Aoki’542 to provide an image associated with the MFP along with characteristic information of the said MFP on a display because this will allow a user to designate a desired MFP more effectively.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi’129 (US 2005/0105129), Morita’960 (US 2016/0352960), Naoki’573 (JP 11-242573) and further in view of Aoki’542 (US 2014/0063542)
With respect to claim 8, which further limits claim 2, the combination of Takahashi’129, Morita’960 and Naoki’573 does not teach wherein the processor is programed to display the one or more first device attributes from the characteristic information on a screen in correlation with an image that simulates an appearance of the host device.
Aoki’542 teaches wherein the processor is programed to display the one or more first device attributes from the characteristic information on a screen in correlation with an image that simulates an appearance of the host device (Fig.11C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Takahashi’129, Morita’960 and Naoki’573 according to the teaching of Aoki’542 to provide an image associated with the MFP along with characteristic information of the said MFP on a display because this will allow a user to designate a desired MFP more effectively.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi’129 (US 2005/0105129), Morita’960 (US 2016/0352960), and further in view Kitamura’796 (US 2008/0204796).
With respect to claim 14, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 does not teaches wherein the processor is programed to display the one or more first device attributes from the characteristic information on a display device of the host device in a case where the user has performed an operation by touching the host device, and to cause a display device of a user terminal, from which the user has made a request for an operation on the host device, to display a screen that displays the one or more first attributes from the characteristic information by transmitting the screen to the user terminal through an external communication line in a case where an operation from the user has been received through the external communication line.
Morikawa’845 teaches wherein the processor is programed to display the one or more first device attributes from the characteristic information on a display device of the host device in a case where the user has performed an operation by touching the host device [as shown in Fig.18, the operation screen having the characteristic information is being displayed after a user has login to the MFP (paragraph 93-95 and Fig. 18)], and
to cause a display device of a user terminal, from which the user has made a request for an operation on the host device, to display a screen that displays the one or more first attributes from the characteristic information by transmitting the screen to the user terminal through an external communication line in a case where an operation from the user has been received through the external communication line (Fig.20 and Fig.21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 according to the teaching of Morikawa’845 to transmit the operation screen of an MFP to a user device because this will allow a user to use the user device to perform operation on an MFP more effectively.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi’129 (US 2005/0105129), Morita’960 (US 2016/0352960) and further in view Kitamura’796 (US 2008/0204796)
With respect to claim 16, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 does not teach wherein the processor is programed to notify the user of a different device with a highest degree of similarity related to the one or more first device attributes as a substitute device for the host device in a case where a trouble with the host device that renders a function designated by the user inexecutable has been detected, the substitute device for the host device being determined using a degree of similarity related to the one or more first device attributes between the host device and each of the different devices calculated from a status of overlap between the one or more first device attributes of the host device and the second device attributes of each of the different devices obtained by comparing the host device information and the different device information.
Kitamura’796 teaches wherein the processor is programed to notify the user of a different device with a highest degree of similarity related to the one or more first device attributes as a substitute device for the host device in a case where a trouble with the host device that renders a function designated by the user unexecutable has been detected [the user is being notified when a job is needed to be processed by the substituted printer and the desired substituted printer is being provided to the user (Fig.9 and paragraph 93). The displayed substituted printer is considered having the highest degree of similarity related to the device attributes as a substitute device for the original designated printer ( the host device) ], the substitute device for the host device being determined using a degree of similarity related to the one or more first device attributes between the host device and each of the different devices calculated from a status of overlap between the one or more first device attributes of the host device and the second device attributes of each of the different devices obtained by comparing the host device information and the different device information [the substituted of a printer is being searched according the same functions provided by said printer and the original designated printer (host device) (Fig. 16 and Fig. 17)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 according to the teaching of Kitamura’796 to provide a substituted printer to perform a job when the original designated printer is not able to perform the said job because this will allow the print job to be processed more effectively.
With respect to claim 17, which further limits claim 16, the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 does not teach wherein the degree of similarity related to the one or more first device attributes is calculated for each function of the host device, and the processor is programed to notify the user of a different device with a highest degree of similarity related to the one or more first device attributes correlated with the function designated by the user as the substitute device for the host device.
Kitamura’796 teaches wherein the degree of similarity related to the one or more first device attributes is calculated for each function of the host device, and the processor is programed to notify the user of a different device with a highest degree of similarity related to the one or more first device attributes correlated with the function designated by the user as the substitute device for the host device [the user is being notified when a job is needed to be processed by the substituted printer and the desired substituted printer is being provided to the user (Fig.9 and paragraph 93). The displayed substituted printer is considered having the highest degree of similarity related to the device attributes as a substitute device for the original designated printer (the host device)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 according to the teaching of Kitamura’796 to provide a substituted printer to perform a job when the original designated printer is not able to perform the said job because this will allow the print job to be processed more effectively.
With respect to claim 18, which further limits claim 17, the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 does not teach wherein the processor is programed to notify the user of a different device that enables selecting a setting value that is identical to a setting value selected by the user for the function designated by the user, among a plurality of different devices, as the substitute device for the host device in a case where there are a plurality of different devices with an equal degree of similarity related to the one or more first device attributes correlated with the function designated by the user.
Kitamura’796 teaches wherein the processor is programed to notify the user of a different device that enables selecting a setting value that is identical to a setting value selected by the user for the function designated by the user, among a plurality of different devices, as the substitute device for the host device in a case where there are a plurality of different devices with an equal degree of similarity related to the one or more first device attributes correlated with the function designated by the user (Fig.9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 according to the teaching of Kitamura’796 to provide a substituted printer to perform a job when the original designated printer is not able to perform the said job because this will allow the print job to be processed more effectively.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi’129 (US 2005/0105129), Morita’960 (US 2016/0352960) and further in view Oba’138 (US 2009/0279138)
With respect to claim 23, which further limits claim 19, the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 does not teach selecting a device attribute from a characteristic candidate data list; determining if the different device includes the same device attribute; and in response to a determination that the different device includes the same device attribute, adding the selected device attribute to a similar data list.
Oba’138 teaches teach selecting a device attribute from a characteristic candidate data list [as shown in Fig.7A, the device attribute from a characteristic candidate data list is being selected to search for the devices having the similar device attribute];
determining if the different device includes the same device attribute [the devices having the similar device attribute are being determined and searched (paragraph 47)]; and
in response to a determination that the different device includes the same device attribute, adding the selected device attribute to a similar data list [the devices having the similar device attribute are being determined and searched, and then being the said devices are being added to a list and displayed (Fig. 8 and paragraph 48)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Takahashi’129 and Morita’960 according to the teaching of Oba’138 to enable the devices having the similar device attribute as a host device to be searched and provided because this allow the desired device to be selected to perform desired operation more effectively.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (571) 272-7490. 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.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682