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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/19/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments as filed on 05/19/2026 have been fully considered and entered but applicant’s arguments as filed are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see remarks, pages 7-8, that Sake with Ritsuto fails to teach the newly amended features which now include some of the features of cancelled dependent claim 6.
In reply, examiner disagrees that asserts updated combination of Sako with Ritsuto sufficiently teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as amended, for instance, Sako teaches generate an operation screen on which a communication is set (operation screen is generated by the cloud service 102 which is then which is transmitted to client terminal 100 via printing apparatus 101 as shown on the display of the client terminal 100 (i.e., external terminal) for setting/confirming the confirmation URL regarding confirmation of cloud communication/computing function, paragraphs 51, 62) for each processing content of a processing apparatus (client terminal 100 operates printing apparatus 101 as shown in fig. 5, and printing apparatus performs processing’s such as scanning, copying, etc., as shown in fig. 4, paragraph 45), wherein the communication destination set for the each processing content is either the information processing apparatus or the processing apparatus (communication destination is set/confirmed in the form of confirmation URL on web browser of client terminal 100 as cloud printing on/off function, wherein printing apparatus is operating and set for executing each of the processing’s such as scanning, copying, etc. when cloud printing is enabled, paragraphs 51, 62-66).
And Ritsuto teaches generating an operation screen on which a communication destination is set in advance for each processing content of a processing apparatus that performs predetermined processing (screen is provided where destination URL corresponding to a region where the MFP is installed is set, see paragraphs 58, 60, 100, wherein, “MFP 101 has a scan function for transmitting data based on an image obtained by reading a document using a scanner to outside, a print function for printing an image on a sheet such as paper based on a print job received from an external apparatus, and a copy function. The MFP 101 can also receive a print job via the CPS registered in advance and perform printing”, paragraph 36 and also note that “a configuration may be employed in which the correspondence relationship between information identifying a country and a URL corresponding to a region and a script such as JavaScript® for operating a web content are transmitted to the client in advance, and the screen is dynamically updated on the client side. In this case, the web browser on the client terminal submits information input to each item in a web form to the MFP 101, paragraph 114).
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 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 1-2, 7, 9, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sako, US 2022/0038586 in view of Ritsuto Sako (hereinafter “Ritsuto”), US 2023/0137214.
Regarding claim 1, Sako discloses an information processing apparatus (printing apparatus 101, fig. 1) comprising: a processor (CPU 202, fig. 2 or operation control unit, fig. 3) configured to:
generate an operation screen on which a communication is set (operation screen is generated by the cloud service 102 which is then which is transmitted to client terminal 100 via printing apparatus 101 as shown on the display of the client terminal 100 (i.e., external terminal) for setting/confirming the confirmation URL regarding confirmation of cloud communication/computing function, paragraphs 51, 62) for each processing content of a processing apparatus (client terminal 100 operates printing apparatus 101 as shown in fig. 5, and printing apparatus performs processing’s such as scanning, copying, etc., as shown in fig. 4, paragraph 45), wherein the communication destination set for the each processing content is either the information processing apparatus or the processing apparatus (communication destination is set/confirmed in the form of confirmation URL on web browser of client terminal 100 as cloud printing on/off function, wherein printing apparatus is operating and set for executing each of the processing’s such as scanning, copying, etc. when cloud printing is enabled, paragraphs 51, 62-66);
transmit the operation screen to an external terminal that operates the processing apparatus (printing apparatus 101 transmits a screen as shown on the display of the client terminal 100 (i.e., external terminal) regarding cloud printing registration and confirming URL of cloud printing registration service, paragraphs 50-51, 62, wherein, client terminal 100 operates printing apparatus 101 as shown in fig. 5 to performs processing’s such as scanning, copying, etc., as shown in fig. 4, paragraph 44);
and set a command accepted from the external terminal (“screen 801 is a screen that is displayed when the confirmation URL 130 is accessed via a Web browser or the like of the client terminal 100. The screen 801 is displayed in response to reception of the screen information 114 for cloud printing registration confirmation. A field 802 is an input field for the user to enter the user code 136. When the user enters the user code 136 in the field 802 and presses the OK button 803, the cloud printing registration approval request 115 is transmitted. In this response to this, when the user confirmation request is received, the screen transitions to the screen 811, paragraph 73).
Sako fails to explicitly disclose generating an operation screen on which a communication destination is set in advance for each processing content of a processing apparatus that performs predetermined processing; and set a command destination of a selected processing content, among the each processing content, as the communication destination set in advance for the selected processing content.
However, Ritsuto teaches generating an operation screen on which a communication destination is set in advance for each processing content of a processing apparatus that performs predetermined processing (screen is provided where destination URL corresponding to a region where the MFP is installed is set, see paragraphs 58, 60, 100, wherein, “MFP 101 has a scan function for transmitting data based on an image obtained by reading a document using a scanner to outside, a print function for printing an image on a sheet such as paper based on a print job received from an external apparatus, and a copy function. The MFP 101 can also receive a print job via the CPS registered in advance and perform printing”, paragraph 36 and also note that “a configuration may be employed in which the correspondence relationship between information identifying a country and a URL corresponding to a region and a script such as JavaScript® for operating a web content are transmitted to the client in advance, and the screen is dynamically updated on the client side. In this case, the web browser on the client terminal submits information input to each item in a web form to the MFP 101, paragraph 114);
and set a command destination of a selected processing content, among the each processing content, as the communication destination set in advance for the selected processing content (control regarding the registration and the use of the cloud print service is selectively described with selection of a display item and based on that “MFP 101 communicates with a client and a cloud print service...If a registration process is executed, the MFP 101 is registered as an output destination printer of the cloud print service provided for a particular region. After the registration, the MFP 101 can perform printing via the cloud print service”, paragraphs 34, 65, 70, 85-86, 122).
Sako and Ritsuto are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with printing apparatuses with cloud print service.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sako with the teachings of Ritsuto for the benefit of efficiently setting a registration destination region in a case where a printing control apparatus is registered in a cloud print service, as taught by Ritsuto at paragraph 5.
Regarding claim 2, Combination of Sako with Ritsuto further teaches set the command destination as the communication destination corresponding to an operation status of the processing apparatus (Sako teaches status confirmation button 413 is used to display and confirm the operating status of the printing apparatus 101 and also is operating status based on registration status, paragraphs 45, 62 and wherein, Ritsuto teaches based on confirming if cloud print function included in the MFP 101 is registered in the cloud print service, MFP 101 is registered as an output destination printer of the cloud print service provided for that region, paragraphs 58, 34).
Sako and Ritsuto are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with printing apparatuses with cloud print service.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sako with the teachings of Ritsuto for the benefit of efficiently setting a registration destination region in a case where a printing control apparatus is registered in a cloud print service, as taught by Ritsuto at paragraph 5.
Regarding claim 7, Combination of Sako with Ritsuto further teaches set the processing apparatus as the command destination (Ritsuto, paragraphs 51, 60, processing apparatus such as MFP 101 and screen is provided where destination URL corresponding to a region where the MFP is installed is set) in a case where a processing content in which print data stored in a storage region set for the processing apparatus in advance for each user is to be printed is accepted as the processing content (Sako, communication destination is set/confirmed in the form of confirmation URL on web browser of client terminal 100 as cloud printing on/off function, wherein printing apparatus is operating and set for executing each of the processing’s such as copying which generates/scans data and temporarily stores generated print data to be printed as part of the copying process, paragraph 34, when URL for cloud printing is enabled and printing apparatus is selected as destination for execute the process such as copying function, paragraphs 45, 51, 62-66).
(Examiner notes that “in a case” limitations are in contingent/alternative form which do not need be satisfied by any of the references cited).
Sako and Ritsuto are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with printing apparatuses with cloud print service.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sako with the teachings of Ritsuto for the benefit of efficiently setting a registration destination region in a case where a printing control apparatus is registered in a cloud print service, as taught by Ritsuto at paragraph 5.
Regarding claim 9, Combination of Sako with Ritsuto further teaches wherein the processing apparatus is an image forming apparatus (Ritsuto, paragraphs 51, 60, processing apparatus such as MFP 101 and screen is provided where destination URL corresponding to a region where the MFP is installed is set), and the external terminal is an operation terminal that is separated from the image forming apparatus (Sako, client terminal 100 (i.e., external terminal) separate from printer regarding cloud printing registration and confirming URL of cloud printing registration service, paragraphs 50-51, 62) and is capable of wirelessly communicating with the image forming apparatus (Ritsuto, MFP 101 communicates with a client and a cloud print service on the Internet via a network which can be wireless network, paragraphs 34-35), and the processor is configured to: set the image forming apparatus as the command destination in a case where a processing content in which a copy operation from the operation terminal is to be performed is accepted (Sako, wherein client terminal operates the printing apparatus and sets it for executing processing as shown in fig. 4, when URL for cloud printing is enabled and printing apparatus is selected as destination for execute the process such as copying function, paragraphs 45, 51, 62-66).
Sako and Ritsuto are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with printing apparatuses with cloud print service.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sako with the teachings of Ritsuto for the benefit of efficiently setting a registration destination region in a case where a printing control apparatus is registered in a cloud print service, as taught by Ritsuto at paragraph 5.
Regarding claim 10, Sako discloses an information processing system (as shown in fig. 1) comprising: the information processing apparatus (cloud printing server 109, fig. 1) according to claim 1 (see the rationale as applied in claim 1 above); the processing apparatus (printing apparatus 101, fig. 1); and the external terminal (client terminal 100, fig. 1, paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 11, which recites a non-transitory computer readable medium version of claim 1, see rationale as applied above. Note that non-transitory computer readable medium is taught by Sako in paragraph 124, claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, is a method version of claim 1 and recites similar features, thus it is rejected on the same rationale.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sako, US 2022/0038586 in view of Ritsuto Sako (hereinafter “Ritsuto”), US 2023/0137214 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Haruki Sato (hereinafter “Haruki”), US 2013/0215442 further in view of Jun Sato (hereinafter “Jun”), US 2016/0156797.
Regarding claim 3, Combination of Sako with Ritsuto fails to explicitly teach set information processing apparatus as communication destination in a case where operation status is a power saving state.
However, Haruki teaches management device transfers to information processing apparatus (another communication device) as communication destination in a case where operation status of processing apparatus (a communication device) is a power saving state (sleep state) (“management device that transfers IP-FAX whose destination is a communication device which is in the sleep state to another communication device selected from among communication devices which are not in the sleep state”, paragraph 7).
Sako and Ritsuto are combinable with Haruki because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with communicating among plurality of information processing devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sako and Ritsuto with the teachings of Haruki for the benefit of providing a communication device that allows a proxy reception device to perform proxy reception of data directed to the communication device as taught by Haruki at paragraph 12.
Combination of Sako with Ritsuto and Haruki Sato fails to teach setting communication destination in a case where operation status is a power saving state.
However, Jun teaches setting device as communication destination in a case where operation status of another device is in a power saving state (“relay apparatus 20 is connected to the PHY 71A and to the PHY 71B via individual communication lines and has a function of selecting the transmission destination of a received packet. Specifically, the relay apparatus 20 selects the MAC 73B as the transmission destination of a packet that is destined for the MAC 73B in a case where the MAC 73B is in the normal state, and selects the MAC 73A as the transmission destination of the packet in a case where the MAC 73B is in the power saving state”, paragraph 88).
Sako, Ritsuto and Haruki are combinable with Jun because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with communicating among plurality of information processing devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sako, Ritsuto and Haruki with the teachings of Jun for the benefit of selecting an efficient destination device which is in active and not in power saving state as taught by Jun at paragraph 88.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sako, US 2022/0038586 in view of Ritsuto Sako (hereinafter “Ritsuto”), US 2023/0137214 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Mizoguchi et al., US 2023/0171349 further in view of Fukaya, US 2011/0242587.
Regarding claim 4, Combination of Sako with Ritsuto fails to explicitly teach transmit, to processing apparatus, an operation history in which the processing apparatus is operated by information processing apparatus; and receive, from the processing apparatus, the operation history in which the processing apparatus is directly operated from external terminal.
However, Mizoguchi teaches transmit, to processing apparatus, an operation history in which the processing apparatus is operated by information processing apparatus (communication history is typically accumulated in the cloud server 108 which includes record result of the operation of the printhead as operated by cloud server, paragraphs 142-145, however, this operation history could be accumulated in printer 101 instead as holding the communication history table which is then transmitted to the cloud server 108, paragraph 150).
Sako and Ritsuto are combinable with Mizoguchi because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with communications among information processing apparatus and printing apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sako and Ritsuto with the teachings of Mizoguchi for the benefit of effectively maintain communication history table in either of devices which can be transmitted as required as taught by Mizoguchi at paragraph 150.
Combination of Sako with Ritsuto and Mizoguchi fails to further teach receiving, from processing apparatus, operation history in which the processing apparatus is directly operated from external terminal.
However, Fukaya teaches receiving, from processing apparatus, operation history in which the processing apparatus is directly operated from external terminal (client PCs which control/operate the image forming device by giving execution instructions, the history comprising as to when each image forming device performed an image stabilization process in response to execution instructions given is stored and relayed back by image forming device to the print server, which monitors working state of each image forming device at all times, paragraph 22).
Sako, Ritsuto and Mizoguchi are combinable with Fukaya because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with communicating among plurality of information processing devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sako, Ritsuto and Mizoguchi with the teachings of Fukaya for the benefit of performing printing which an operator desires even if the operator does not designate an image forming device from a client terminal, and performing desired high quality printing as taught by Fukaya at paragraph 7.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sako, US 2022/0038586 in view of Ritsuto Sako (hereinafter “Ritsuto”), US 2023/0137214 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Yoshida, US 2013/0077130.
Regarding claim 5, Combination of Sako with Ritsuto fails to explicitly teach receive information regarding a processing result processed in processing apparatus from the processing apparatus in a case of a predetermined debug mode.
However, Yoshida teaches receive information regarding a processing result processed in processing apparatus from the processing apparatus in a case of a predetermined debug mode (image processor 100 of printing device, paragraph 31, in case of executing a predetermined error process (i.e., debug mode), notifies the requesting information terminal 200 (that has requested printing) of the details of the error (i.e., result of printing process such as error in printing, paragraphs 168, 80).
Sako and Ritsuto are combinable with Yoshida because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with communicating among plurality of information processing devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sako and Ritsuto with the teachings of Yoshida for the benefit of providing effective processing details of printing process in case of an error as taught by Yoshida at paragraph 168.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: cited prior arts and other related prior arts fail to explicitly teach “wherein the processor is configured to: acquire in advance a file list stored in a storage region set for the processing apparatus in advance for each user, and set the information processing apparatus as the command destination in a case where a processing content in which a file stored in the storage region set for the processing apparatus in advance for each user is transferred to the external terminal is accepted” as currently recited in claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kusumoto, US 2023/0254432
Nakajima, US 2023/0168844
Ohshita, US 2021/0152634
Kado, US 2023/0195397
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAWANDEEP DHINGRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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 at (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.
/PAWAN DHINGRA/Examiner, Art Unit 2683
/ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights