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 .
This Office Action is in response to communications filed on 8/2/2026.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8 & 10-18 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 17 & 18 have been amended.
Objection to claim 17 has been withdrawn based on amendments to this claim.
Rejections to claims 1 & 17 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn based on amendments to these claims, but rejection to claim 18 under 35 USC 112(b) has been maintained.
Rejections to claims 1-4, 6, 8 & 10-18 under 35 USC 103 made in the Non-final Rejection dated 4/2/2026 have been withdrawn based on amendments to claims 1, 17 & 18, but new grounds of rejections under 35 USC 103 have been made to claims 1-4, 6, 8 & 10-18 based on new reference Umehara et al. (US 2020/0413403)(herein after “Umehara”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 8/2/2026, with respect to the Objection of claim 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection of claim 17 has been withdrawn based on amendments to this claim.
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 8/2/2026, with respect to the Rejections of claims 1 & 17 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments to these claims clarify how the recited methods and communication protocols relate. Rejections to claims 1 & 17 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn based on amendments to these claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/2/2026, with respect to the 35 US 112(b) rejection of claim 18, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although amendments to claim 18 have clarified how the methods relate to the communication protocols, claim 18 still recites “the one or more processors” which has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, examiner maintains rejection of claim 18 under 35 USC 112(b) for being indefinite.
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 3/23/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 8 & 10-18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made to these claims under 35 USC 103 in view of new reference Umehara et al. (US 2020/0413403)(herein after “Umehara”).
Regarding claim 1, applicant submits that amendments to this claim traverse the rejection of this claim under 35 USC 103 made in the Non-final Rejection dated 4/2/2026. Examiner agrees and withdraws rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 made in the Non-final Rejection dated 4/2/2026. However, after further consideration, examiner introduces a new ground of rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 based on new reference Umehara. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Regarding claims 17 & 18, applicant submits that these claims traverse the rejections of these claims under 35 USC 103 made in the Non-final Rejection dated 4/2/2026 due to similar amendments and arguments as made for claim 1. Examiner agrees and withdraws rejections of claims 11 & 16 under 35 USC 103 made in the Non-final Rejection dated 4/2/2026. However, for the same reasons as discussed above, examiner introduces new grounds of rejections of claims 11 & 16 under 35 USC 103 based on new reference Umehara.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6, 8 & 10-16, applicant submits that these claims traverse the rejections of these claims under 35 USC 103 made in the Non-final Rejection dated 4/2/2026 due to amendments and arguments made for claim 1 and due to their dependency on claim 1. Examiner agrees and withdraws rejections of claims 2-4, 6, 8 & 10-16 under 35 USC 103 made in the Non-final Rejection dated 4/2/2026. However, for the same reasons as discussed above, examiner introduces new grounds of rejections of claims 2-4, 6, 8 & 10-16 under 35 USC 103 based on new reference Umehara.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 17 & 18 recite “wherein the first connection method includes a first communication method of performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using a first network setup protocol as communication for connecting the access point and the communication apparatus, and a second communication method of performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using a second network setup protocol different from the first network setup protocol for connecting the access point and the communication apparatus, wherein a determination is made to determine if both the first communication method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the first network setup protocol and the second communication method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the second network setup protocol are extracted as connection methods executable by the communication apparatus and the information processing apparatus”. Examiner is interpreting “the communication” as being associated with text following that defines which protocol is used, and thus “the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the first network setup protocol” is in reference to “performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using a first network setup protocol” and “the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the second network setup protocol” is in reference to “performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using a second network setup protocol”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 18 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.
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites “the one or more processors being configured to operate to”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting this claim limitation as “the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program being configured to cause the computer to function to:”.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-12, 17 & 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi et al. (US 10678483)(herein after “Sekiguchi”) in view of Umehara et al. (US 2020/0413403)(herein after “Umehara”), and further in view of Takeshi et al. (EP 3547732)(herein after “Takeshi”).
Regarding Claims 1, 17 & 18, Sekiguchi discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors connected to one or more memories (Col 14, lines 66-67 & col 15, lines 1-27 disclose an apparatus of the embodiments of the invention (e.g. a PC or smartphone) may include one or more processors that can read and execute computer executable instructions from a storage medium (i.e. memory) that may include a hard disk, RAM or ROM.);
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program (Col 14, lines 66-67 & col 15, lines 1-15 disclose a computer that reads out and executes one or more programs recorded on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.); and
a method (Col 1, lines 14-18 disclose a method for controlling an information processing apparatus.); wherein
the one or more processors are configured to perform the operations of, or the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program is configured to cause a computer to perform the functions of, or the method is comprising: acquiring information of a communication apparatus from the communication apparatus capable of wirelessly communicating with an information processing apparatus (Col 2, lines 59-64 disclose a PC or smartphone as examples of an information processing apparatus and a printer as an example of a communication apparatus. Figs 1 & 2, col 3, lines 62-67 & col 4, lines 1-7 disclose the information processing apparatus 201 and printer 251 are capable of wirelessly communicating through wireless interfaces 212 & 213. Fig 3 & col 7, lines 11-18 disclose a control method executed through a program implemented by a CPU in the information processing apparatus. Fig 7 & col 9, lines 47-55 disclose the program performs a network search using SNMP to acquire device information from the printer. Thus, disclosed is a method comprising: acquiring information from a printer capable of wirelessly communicating with an information processing apparatus.);
displaying, on a display unit, a selection screen for a setting concerning connection between the communication apparatus and a device outside the communication apparatus, based on the acquired information of the communication apparatus (Fig 4 & col 7, lines 32-56 disclose displaying, on a display unit 208, a selection screen for a setting method related to a connection between a printer and an access point external to the printer.); and
performing processing according to a selection result on the selection screen (Fig 3 & col 7, lines 47-51 disclose the program executes wireless interface decision processing in response to a screen selection.),
wherein the selection screen is a screen on which a plurality of connection methods for the setting are selectably displayed, and the plurality of connection methods include a first connection method for indirectly connecting an access point outside the communication apparatus to the communication apparatus, and a second connection method for directly connecting, without the access point, the information processing apparatus to the communication apparatus (Fig 4 & col 7, lines 35-43 disclose a selection screen with multiple connection methods for a setting of multiple connection methods including a second connection method for indirectly connecting a WLAN router access point outside the printer to the printer, and a first method for connecting, without the WLAN router access point, an information processing apparatus directly to the printer.);
the one or more processors being configured to perform the operations of, or the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program being configured to cause the computer to perform the function of, or the method further comprising: extracting a connection method executable by the communication apparatus and the information processing apparatus based on the acquired information of the communication apparatus and information of the information processing apparatus (Fig 6 & col 8, lines 47-52 disclose adding wireless interfaces in an unconnected state to a list A and adding wireless interfaces in a connected state to a list B. Fig 5 & col 8, lines 7-10 disclose that step S501 acquires information about wireless interfaces present in an information processing apparatus. Fig 7 & col 9, lines 47-55 disclose the program performs a network search using SNMP to acquire device information from a printer. Col 9, lines 61-65 & col 10, lines 7-10 disclose using the device information to determine if a wireless interface is already directly-connected, and if so then the wireless interface is deleted from list B and added to list A. Fig. 8, col 10, lines 40-54 disclose the program executes processing based on the wireless interfaces in list A. Thus, disclosed is extracting a wireless connection that can be executed by a printer and information processing apparatus, based on device information from the printer and wireless interface information from the information processing apparatus.),
Sekiguchi fails to disclose, but Umehara teaches wherein the first connection method includes a first communication method of performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using a first network setup protocol as communication for connecting the access point and the communication apparatus (Figs 1 & 4, and [0024]-[0026] & [0064] disclose APs, a camera 20 (i.e. a communication apparatus) and a smartphone 30 (i.e. an information processing apparatus), wherein the smartphone 30 may communicate (i.e. a first communication method) with the camera 20 using a Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) protocol (i.e. a first network setup protocol) as communication for connecting an AP to the camera 20 using a legacy PSK-passphrase.), and a second communication method of performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using a second network setup protocol different from the first network setup protocol for connecting the access point and the communication apparatus (Figs 1 & 4, and [0024]-[0026] & [0064] disclose APs, a camera 20 (i.e. a communication apparatus) and a smartphone 30 (i.e. an information processing apparatus), wherein the smartphone 30 may communicate (i.e. a second communication method) with the camera 20 using a Device Provisioning Protocol (DPP) (i.e. a second network setup protocol) as communication for connecting an AP to the camera 20 using a connector defined by the DPP.),
wherein a determination is made to determine if both the first communication method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the first network setup protocol and the second communication method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the second network setup protocol are extracted as connection methods executable by the communication apparatus and the information processing apparatus (Figs 1 & 5 and [0067]-[0078] discloses that smartphone 30 performs wireless LAN scanning to detect APs and determines which channels and protocols are supported by the camera 20 and the APs. For example, in the scenario of fig 1 where AP303 does not support DPP and uses WPA to connect to camera 20 on a channel supported by both camera 20 and AP303, and AP304 does support DPP and uses a connector of the DPP to connect to camera 20 on a channel supported by both camera 20 and AP304, and no other APs are in the system, then the smartphone 30 would determine that both a communication (i.e. the first communication method) using WPA (i.e. the first network setup protocol) to setup communication between the camera 20 and AP303, and a communication (i.e. the second communication method) using DPP (i.e. the second network setup protocol) to setup communication between the camera 20 and AP303, are executable.), then,
based on the determination
the first communication method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the first network setup protocol is not displayed on the selection screen (Figs 1, 2 & 5 and [0036], [0074] & [0077] discloses that, as a result of the scanning (i.e. based on the determination), the smartphone 30 may display, on a display unit 108, only the APs that are capable of the DPP for connecting to the camera 20, and thus would not display APs that do not support DPP. In the scenario discussed above, the smartphone 30 would not display AP303 (i.e. the first communication method using first network setup protocol WPA) on display 108 since AP303 does not support DPP.), and
the second communication method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the second network setup protocol is displayed on the selection screen (Figs 1, 2 & 5 and [0036], [0074] & [0077] discloses that, as a result of the scanning (i.e. based on the determination), the smartphone 30 may display, on a display unit 108, only the APs that are capable of the DPP for connecting to the camera 20, and thus would not display APs that do not support DPP. In the scenario discussed above, the smartphone 30 would display AP304 (i.e. the second communication method using second network setup protocol DPP) on display 108 since AP304 does support DPP.), and
wherein the first network setup protocol includes network setup by network setup protocol (Figs 1 & 4, and [0024]-[0026] & [0064] disclose that smartphone 30 may communicate with the camera 20 using a Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) protocol (i.e. the first network setup protocol is a network setup protocol WPA) as communication for connecting an AP to the camera 20 using a legacy PSK-passphrase.), and the second network setup protocol includes network setup by DPP (Figs 1 & 4, and [0024]-[0026] & [0064] disclose that smartphone 30 may communicate with the camera 20 using DPP (i.e. the second network setup protocol is network setup by DPP) as communication for connecting an AP to the camera 20 using a connector defined by the DPP.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an information processing apparatus operating to, or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program configured to cause a computer to function to, or a method to acquire information of a communication apparatus from the communication apparatus capable of wirelessly communicating with an, or the, information processing apparatus, and extracting a connection method executable by the communication apparatus and the information processing apparatus based on the acquired information of the communication apparatus and information of the information processing apparatus, as disclosed by Sekiguchi, wherein the first connection method includes a first communication method of performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using a first network setup protocol as communication for connecting the access point and the communication apparatus, and a second communication method of performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using a second network setup protocol different from the first network setup protocol for connecting the access point and the communication apparatus, wherein a determination is made to determine if both the first communication method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the first network setup protocol and the second communication method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the second network setup protocol are extracted as connection methods executable by the communication apparatus and the information processing apparatus, then, based on the determination the first communication method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the first network setup protocol is not displayed on the selection screen, and the second communication method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the second network setup protocol is displayed on the selection screen, and wherein the first network setup protocol includes network setup by network setup protocol, and the second network setup protocol includes network setup by DPP, as taught by Umehara. The motivation to do so would have been to have a smartphone, or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program configured to cause a computer in the smartphone to function to, or a method for a smartphone to, scan for APs that can connect to a wireless printer, determine connection and communication methods for connecting the APs to the wireless printer, determining which APs support DPP and do not require user input information protocols for connection to the wireless printer, and which APs do not support DPP but support other protocols such as WPA requiring user input information such as a legacy PSK-passphrase to connect to the wireless printer, and select to display on APs that support DPP and not display APs that do not support DPP in order to simplify connection setup through APs that support DPP and do not require user input information.
Sekiguchi fails to disclose, but Takeshi further teaches wherein network setup by DPP does not require input of information by a user (Figs 1 & 2 and [0025] disclose that a selection screen presenting protocols for manual connection, WPS connection (i.e. a network setup protocol) and DPP connection, and that the DPP connection does not require a user to input wireless setting information.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an information processing apparatus operating to, or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program configured to cause a computer to function to, or a method to acquire information of a communication apparatus from the communication apparatus capable of wirelessly communicating with an, or the, information processing apparatus, and extracting a connection method executable by the communication apparatus and the information processing apparatus based on the acquired information of the communication apparatus and information of the information processing apparatus, wherein the first connection method includes a first communication method of performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using a first network setup protocol as communication for connecting the access point and the communication apparatus, and a second communication method of performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using a second network setup protocol different from the first network setup protocol for connecting the access point and the communication apparatus, wherein a determination is made to determine if both the first communication method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the first network setup protocol and the second communication method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the second network setup protocol are extracted as connection methods executable by the communication apparatus and the information processing apparatus, then, based on the determination the first communication method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the first network setup protocol is not displayed on the selection screen, and the second communication method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the second network setup protocol is displayed on the selection screen, and wherein the first network setup protocol includes network setup by network setup protocol, and the second network setup protocol includes network setup by DPP, as disclosed by Sekiguchi in view of Umehara, wherein network setup by DPP does not require input of information by a user, as further taught by Takeshi. The motivation to do so would have been to have a smartphone, or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program configured to cause a computer in the smartphone to function to, or a method for a smartphone to, scan for APs that can connect to a wireless printer, determine connection and communication methods for connecting the APs to the wireless printer, determining which APs support DPP and do not require user input information protocols for connection to the wireless printer, and which APs do not support DPP but support other protocols such as WPA requiring user input information such as a legacy PSK-passphrase to connect to the wireless printer, and select to display on APs that support DPP and not display APs that do not support DPP in order to simplify connection setup through APs that support DPP and do not require user input information.
Regarding Claim 2, Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi disclose the method of claim 1.
Sekiguchi discloses further comprising acquiring information of the information processing apparatus, wherein the selection screen is displayed based on the acquired information of the communication apparatus and the acquired information of the information processing apparatus (Fig 6 & col 8, lines 31-46 disclose a program acquiring information on the connected state of a wireless interface in an information processing apparatus, such as wireless I/Fs 211 and 213 in fig 2. Fig 7 & col 9, lines 47-55 disclose the program performs a network search using SNMP to acquire device information from a printer. Fig 9, Col 10 & lines 40-54 disclose a selection screen displaying connection status based on the acquired device information from the printer and the acquired wireless I/F status information from the information processing apparatus.).
Regarding Claim 3, Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi disclose the method of claim 2.
Sekiguchi discloses wherein the information of the communication apparatus and the information of the information processing apparatus include an enable/disable state of execution of each of the plurality of connection methods (Fig 5, col 8, lines 12-25 disclose the information of an information processing apparatus including enable/disable state for a wireless interface. Fig 7 & col 9, lines 47-55 disclose a program performs a network search using SNMP to acquire device information from a printer. Fig 9, Col 10 & lines 40-54 disclose a selection screen displaying connection status (i.e. connection being enabled and unconnected being disabled) of a plurality of wireless interfaces based on the acquired device information from the printer and the acquired wireless I/F status information from the information processing apparatus.).
Regarding Claim 6, Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi disclose the method of claim 1.
Sekiguchi discloses wherein the acquired connection method is selectably displayed on the selection screen (Fig 9 & col 10, lines 40-54 disclose a selection screen displaying a plurality of wireless interface from a list A that can be selected by a user for direct connection.).
Regarding Claim 10, Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi disclose the method of claim 1.
Sekiguchi discloses wherein if the first connection method is selected on the selection screen, the communication between the communication apparatus and the information processing apparatus by the second protocol is started (Fig 9 & col 10, lines 40-54 disclose a selection screen displaying a list of a plurality of wireless interfaces that a user may select. If the first wireless interface in the list was using a second protocol to communicate between a printer (i.e. communication apparatus) and an information processing apparatus, then if a user were to select the first wireless interface in the list a program would start to connect the wireless interface.).
Regarding Claim 11, Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi disclose the method of claim 10.
Sekiguchi discloses wherein if the second connection method is selected on the selection screen, the communication between the communication apparatus and the information processing apparatus by a third protocol different from the first protocol and the second protocol is started (Fig 9 & col 10, lines 40-54 disclose a selection screen displaying a list of a plurality of wireless interfaces that a user may select. A scenario for the list disclosed by Sekiguchi in view of Chen is a first wireless interface in the list using a first protocol, e.g. 802.11a, to communicate between a printer (i.e. a communication apparatus) and an information processing apparatus, a third wireless interface in the list using a second protocol, e.g. 802.11b, to communicate between a printer and an information processing apparatus, and a second wireless interface in the list using a third protocol, e.g. 802.11g, to communicate between a printer and an information processing apparatus. In the scenario disclosed, if the second wireless interface were selected on the selection screen, a program starts the communication between the printer and the information processing apparatus using the third protocol (802.11g) different from the first protocol (802.11a) and the second protocol (802.11b).
Regarding Claim 12, Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi disclose the method of claim 11.
Sekiguchi discloses wherein the third protocol is WiFi Direct (Fig 1B & col 3, lines 35-56 disclose Wi-Fi Direct as a protocol for communication between a printer and an information processing apparatus.).
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi et al. (US 10678483)(herein after “Sekiguchi”) in view of Umehara et al. (US 2020/0413403)(herein after “Umehara”) and Takeshi et al. (EP 3547732)(herein after “Takeshi”), as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Abe et al. (US 2012/0110213)(herein after “Abe”).
Regarding Claim 4, Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi discloses the method of Claim 2.
Sekiguchi fails to disclose wherein the information of the information processing apparatus includes version information of an operating system.
However, Abe further teaches wherein the information of the information processing apparatus includes version information of an operating system ([0017] discloses a peripheral apparatus management unit that acquires version information of an operating system of an information processing apparatus.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 2, as disclosed by Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi, wherein the information of the information processing apparatus includes version information of an operating system, as further taught by Abe. The motivation to do so would be to ensure software compatibility between a printer and an information processing devices such as a PC, when displaying on a display unit connection status information between the printer and the information processing device.
Claim 8 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi et al. (US 10678483)(herein after “Sekiguchi”) in view of Umehara et al. (US 2020/0413403)(herein after “Umehara”) and Takeshi et al. (EP 3547732)(herein after “Takeshi”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of tp-link et al. (tp-link, “The What, Why, and How of Wi-Fi Easy Connect”, https://community.tp-link.com/en/business/kb/detail/358, 1/9/2020)(herein after “tp-link”).
Regarding Claim 8, Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi discloses the method according to claim 1.
Sekiguchi fails to disclose wherein the second protocol is Device Provisioning Protocol (DPP).
However, tp-link further teaches wherein the second protocol is Device Provisioning Protocol (DPP) (Section “How WiFi Easy Connect Simplifies the Connection of Wi-Fi Device” discloses running DDP as a protocol to connect communication devices such as a smartphone to an AP.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 1, as disclosed by Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi, wherein the second protocol is Device Provisioning Protocol (DPP), as further taught by tp-link. The motivation to do so would be to provide an easy way to connect communication devices such as printers and smartphones to an AP in a Wi-Fi network with minimal manual interaction.
Claims 13 & 14 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi et al. (US 10678483)(herein after “Sekiguchi”) in view of Umehara et al. (US 2020/0413403)(herein after “Umehara”) and Takeshi et al. (EP 3547732)(herein after “Takeshi”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Grandil et al. (US 2016/0098238)(herein after “Grandil”).
Regarding Claim 13, Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi discloses the method according to claim 1.
Sekiguchi fails to disclose wherein the information of the communication apparatus is acquired from the communication apparatus by short distance wireless communication.
However, Grandil further teaches wherein the information of the communication apparatus is acquired from the communication apparatus by short distance wireless communication (Fig 1 & [0013] disclose acquiring mobile printer information from the mobile printer using a short distance wireless connection.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 1, as disclosed by Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi, wherein the information of the communication apparatus is acquired from the communication apparatus by short distance wireless communication, as further taught by Grandil. The motivation to do so would be to use short range wireless communication to access printer information directly from a printer when other broadband wireless or wireline connections are not available.
Regarding Claim 14, Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi and Grandil discloses the method according to Claim 13.
Sekiguchi discloses further comprising a selection result on the selection screen is transmitted to the communication apparatus (Fig. 4 & col 7, lines 47-63 disclose a direct connection selection from a selection screen resulting in a direct connection between an information processing apparatus and a printer (i.e. a communication apparatus) via transmission from a wireless LAN.).
Sekiguchi fails to disclose a selection result transmitted to the communication apparatus by short distance wireless communication.
However, Grandil further teaches a selection result transmitted to the communication apparatus by short distance wireless communication (Fig 1 & [0013] disclose a user selecting a document to print and a mobile printer printing when it receives the user selection transmitted by a mobile computing device through short range wireless communication.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 13, further comprising a selection result on the selection screen is transmitted to the communication apparatus, as disclosed by Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi and Grandil, wherein the selection result is transmitted to the communication apparatus by short distance wireless communication, as further taught by Grandil. The motivation to do so would be to use short range wireless communication to select wireless interfaces for a printer when other broadband wireless or wireline connections are not available.
Claim 15 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi et al. (US 10678483)(herein after “Sekiguchi”) in view of Umehara et al. (US 2020/0413403)(herein after “Umehara”) and Takeshi et al. (EP 3547732)(herein after “Takeshi”) and Grandil et al. (US 2016/0098238)(herein after “Grandil”), as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Moukas et al. (US 2009/0089131)(herein after “Moukas”).
Regarding Claim 15, Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi and Grandil disclose the method according to Claim 14.
Sekiguchi fails to disclose wherein after selection is performed on the selection screen, a screen that urges a user to bring the information processing apparatus close to the communication apparatus is displayed on the display unit, and when the information processing apparatus comes close to the communication apparatus, the selection result on the selection screen is transmitted to the communication apparatus.
However, Moukas further teaches wherein after selection is performed on the selection screen, a screen that urges a user to bring the information processing apparatus close to the communication apparatus is displayed on the display unit, and when the information processing apparatus comes close to the communication apparatus, the selection result on the selection screen is transmitted to the communication apparatus ([0220] discloses a user receiving a message about a specially offered product on the users device (i.e. on a selection screen on the users device representing a communication apparatus) and the user accepting the message. After selecting to accept the message, messages indicating “Cold”, “Warm”, ”Warmer” or “Hot” are sent to the screen of the user, urging the user to bring the user device closer to a Bluetooth hotspot (i.e. an information processing apparatus) near the product of interest. When the user finds their way close to the product selected, the product the user selected on the selection screen is transmitted to the user device with a congratulations message having found the product.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 14, as disclosed by Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi and Grandil, wherein after selection is performed on the selection screen, a screen that urges a user to bring the information processing apparatus close to the communication apparatus is displayed on the display unit, and when the information processing apparatus comes close to the communication apparatus, the selection result on the selection screen is transmitted to the communication apparatus, as further taught by Moukas. The motivation to do so would be to assist a user with a user device wanting to print a document from the user device on a printer by sending the user “Cold”, “Warm”, “Warmer” and “Hot” indications on a screen on the user device to help the user move close enough to the printer to enable a direct connection between the user device and the printer so the document can be printed.
Claim 16 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi et al. (US 10678483)(herein after “Sekiguchi”) in view of Umehara et al. (US 2020/0413403)(herein after “Umehara”) and Takeshi et al. (EP 3547732)(herein after “Takeshi”) and Grandil et al. (US 2016/0098238)(herein after “Grandil”), as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Omori et al. (US 2013/0133029)(herein after “Omori”).
Regarding Claim 16, Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi and Grandil discloses the method according to Claim 13.
Sekiguchi fails to disclose wherein the short distance wireless communication is Near Field Communication (NFC).
However, Omori further teaches wherein the short distance wireless communication is Near Field Communication (NFC) (Fig 1 & [0042] disclose the use of NFC for short distance wireless communication between two WLAN terminals.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 13, as disclosed by Sekiguchi in view of Umehara and Takeshi and Grandil, wherein the short distance wireless communication is Near Field Communication (NFC), as further taught by Omori. The motivation to do so would be to use NFC to access printer information directly from a printer when other broadband wireless or wireline connections are not available.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fujimori et al. (US 2021/0352479) discloses a Communication Apparatus, Method of Controlling Communication Apparatus, and Non-Transitory Computer-Readable Storage Medium.
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 JAMES P SEYMOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/JAMES P SEYMOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights