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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/23/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8 & 10-18 are pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 2022-075411, filed on 4/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/13/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection on 10/1/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 17 & 18 have been amended.
Rejections to claims 1, 17 & 18 under 35 USC 112(b) have been maintained based on amendments to these claims.
Rejections to claims 1-4, 6, 8 & 10-18 under 35 USC 103 based on Sekiguchi et al. (US 10678483)(herein after “Sekiguchi”) in view of Chen et al. (Dong Chen, Northwest Polytechnical University, “A Survey of IEEE 802.11 Protocols: Comparison and Prospective”, Advances in Engineering Research Vol. 141, 5th Internationals Conference on Mechatronics, Materials, Chemistry and Computer Engineering, 2017 )(herein after “Chen”) and other reference cited in the prior record Final Rejection dated 10/1/2025 have been withdrawn based on amendments to claims 1, 17 & 18. However, after further consideration, new grounds of rejections to these claims under 35 USC 103 based on Sekiguchi in view of Chen and further in view of new references Takeshi et al. (EP 3547732)(herein after “Takeshi”) and Minakawa et al. (US 10963198)(herein after “Minakawa”), and other references cited in this Office action, have been introduced based on amendments to claims 1, 17 & 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/21/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 17 & 18 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 17 & 18, applicant has amended claims 1, 17 & 18 to clarify the conditions of the if/then statements, and to clarify the methods as either the first connection method or a second connection method. Regarding claim 17, applicant has amended this claim to clarify that the processors are connected to one or more memories. However, these claims still recite “wherein the first connection method includes a method of performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using a first protocol as communication for connecting the access point and the communication apparatus, and a method of performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using a second protocol different from the first protocol as the communication for connecting the access point and the communication apparatus”. It is confusing if not impossible to have a first connection method that includes a method using a first protocol and a method using a second protocol different from the first protocol.
Further, these claims still recite “wherein a determination is made to determine if both the method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the first protocol and the method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the second protocol are extracted as the connection methods executable by the communication apparatus and the information processing apparatus”. It is unclear whether “the method” is referring to the first or second connection method.
Based on the discussion above, examiner maintains rejections of claims 1, 17 & 18 under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant's arguments filed 12/21/2025 & 1/30/2026, with respect to the 35 US 103 rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 8 & 10-18, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant submits that claims 1-4, 6, 8 & 10-18 are patentable based on amendments and arguments made for these claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that, per 35 U.S.C. 103, a patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained 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 (see §MPEP 2141).
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues in “Remarks” dated 12/21/2025 that Sekiguchi does not provide a selective display made based on extracted or determined communication methods. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig 9 & col 2, lines 32-34 of Sekiguchi discloses a selection screen for selecting a wireless interface from a list A and a list B (i.e. a selective display). Fig 5 & col 8, lines 7-10 disclose acquiring 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. Thus, the interfaces displayed on the selective display are based on determining whether a communication for a wireless interface is of a directly-connected method or not.
Applicant argues in “Remarks” dated 12/21/2025 that Sekiguchi does not provide any motivation for selectively displaying different protocols, and that Chen in combination with Sekiguchi, does not teach or suggest these features of claim 1. Examiner acknowledges that Sekiguchi does not disclose the use of different protocols for the wireless interfaces. However, Chen is used to teach that each wireless interface of Sekiguchi may be a different protocol (see pages 572-575, Sections 3-6 disclose different 802.11 standards based WLAN protocols including 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g, 802.11n, 802.11ac & 802.11ax that can be used for the first method and the second method.). Examiner notes that the claim language of claim 1 does not require that the selective displaying is determined based on which protocol is used, but only requires that the selective displaying is determined based on the method of performing communication using a first or second protocol being executable. Thus, any of the wireless protocols of Chen could be used for the wireless interfaces of Sekiguchi, while Sekiguchi teaches of only displaying wireless interfaces that are executable, as recited by the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant argues in “Remarks” filed 1/30/2026 that the Sekiguchi discloses of selection screens showing different devices and not connection methods for a particular device as recited in claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that Fig 9 and col 1, lines 38-45 & col 10, lines 40-54 of Sekiguchi disclose displaying of wireless interfaces for connection to a communication device. Thus, there is a clear distinction in Sekiguchi between a wireless interface and a communication device to which the wireless interface is connected, and Sekiguchi clearly discloses that wireless interfaces are selectively displayed and not communication devices.
Based on the above discussion, examiner maintains rejection of amended claim 1 under 35 USC 103 based on amendments and arguments submitted in communications filed on 12/21/2025 and 1/30/2026.
Regarding claims 17 & 18, applicant submits in “Remarks”, filed 12/21/2025, that claims 17 & 18 are patentable due to similar amendments and arguments as made for claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees and for the same reasons discussed above maintains rejection of claims 17 & 18 under 35 USC 103 based on amendments and arguments submitted in communications filed on 12/21/2025 and 1/30/2026.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6, 8 & 10-16, applicant submits in “Remarks”, filed 12/21/2025, that these claims 17 & 18 are patentable due to amendments and arguments made for claims 1, 17 & 18 and due to their dependency on claims 1, 17 or 18. Examiner respectfully disagrees and for the same reasons discussed above maintains rejection of claims 2-4, 6, 8 & 10-16 under 35 USC 103 based on amendments and arguments submitted in communications filed on 12/21/2025 and 1/30/2026.
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 references Takeshi et al. (EP 3547732)(herein after “Takeshi”) and Minakawa et al. (US 10963198)(herein after “Minakawa”). Applicant’s arguments in “Remarks” filed 3/23/2026 with respect to claims 1-4, 6, 8 & 10-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17 recites “An information processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors connected to one or more processors memories, the one or more processors being configured to operate to operate to:”. The function “to operate” is repeated making this limitation unclear English. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting this claim limitation as “An information processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors connected to one or more processors memories, the one or more processors being configured to operate to:”.
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.
Claims 1, 17 & 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 claims 1, 17 & 18, these claims recite “wherein the first connection method includes a method of performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using a first protocol as communication for connecting the access point and the communication apparatus, and a method of performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using a second protocol different from the first protocol as the communication for connecting the access point and the communication apparatus”. It is confusing if not impossible to have a first connection method that includes a method using a first protocol and a method using a second protocol different from the first protocol. Amendment to this claim limitation is required to provide clarification. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting this claim limitation as “wherein the first connection method includes a method of performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using a first protocol as communication for connecting the access point and the communication apparatus, and the second connection method includes a method of performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using a second protocol different from the first protocol as the communication for connecting the access point and the communication apparatus”.
Further, these claims still recite “wherein a determination is made to determine if both the method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the first protocol and the method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the second protocol are extracted as the connection methods executable by the communication apparatus and the information processing apparatus”. It is unclear whether “the method” is referring to the first or second connection method. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting these limitations as “wherein a determination is made to determine if both the first connection method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the first protocol and the second connection method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus using the second protocol are extracted as the connection methods executable by the communication apparatus and the information processing apparatus”.
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 Chen et al. (Dong Chen, Northwest Polytechnical University, “A Survey of IEEE 802.11 Protocols: Comparison and Prospective”, Advances in Engineering Research Vol. 141, 5th Internationals Conference on Mechatronics, Materials, Chemistry and Computer Engineering, 2017 )(herein after “Chen”), and further in view of Takeshi et al. (EP 3547732)(herein after “Takeshi”) and Minakawa et al. (US 10963198)(herein after “Minakawa”).
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 connecting an access point outside the communication apparatus to the communication apparatus, and a second connection method for 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 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.),
wherein the first connection method includes a method of performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus, and a method of performing communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus (Fig 4 & col 7, lines 35-43 disclose multiple connection methods including a method for connecting a WLAN router access point outside the printer to the printer (i.e. a first connection method), and a method for connecting, without the WLAN router access point, an information processing apparatus directly to the printer (i.e. a second connection method).)
wherein a determination is made to determine if both the method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus and the method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus are extracted as connection methods executable by the communication apparatus and the information processing apparatus (Fig 5 & col 8, lines 11-25 disclose determining whether a wireless interface is enabled or disabled, and if a wireless interface is determined to be enabled, then the wireless interface is taken to the next step S503 to determine if the wireless interface is unconnected. This determination is made initially, regardless of whether the wireless interface is directly connected between an information processing apparatus and communication apparatus (i.e. a second connection method) or connected through an access point outside the communication apparatus to the communication apparatus. Thus disclosed is a determination that is made to determine if both a first and second connection method are extracted as connection methods for executing communication between the communication apparatus and the information processing apparatus.),
then, based on the determination, the first connection method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus is not displayed on the selection screen, and the second connection method of performing the communication between the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus is displayed on the selection screen (Fig 12, col 12, lines 28-67 & col 13, lines 1-36 disclose a priority determination process where wireless interfaces are assessed and put into a first through fourth priority list. Wireless interfaces that have no network profile, and thus no wireless LAN connection, are placed in a first priority list. Wireless interfaces that have a network profile and a history of direct connection are placed in a second priority list. Wireless interfaces with a network profile and no history of direct connection, but with infrastructure-connected history are placed in a third priority list. Wireless interfaces with a network profile but no infrastructure-connected history are placed into a fourth priority list. Based on this priority list classification, first connection methods that connect to an access point outside the communication apparatus would be prioritized in lists 3 or 4, while second connection methods that connect to the communication apparatus without an outside access point (i.e. direct connection) would be prioritized in lists 1 or 2. Fig 13 and col 13, lines 37-62 & col 14. Lines 1-10 disclose that when there are two or more wireless interfaces in priority list 2 (i.e. including the second connection method and at least one other direct connection method), then a selection screen would display the second wireless interface and the at least one other direct connection wireless interface, and would not display the wireless interfaces in one of the third or fourth priority lists (i.e. would not display the first connection method).).
Sekiguchi fails to disclose, but Chen teaches wherein the first connection method uses a first protocol as communication for connecting the access point and the communication apparatus, and using a second protocol different from the first protocol as the communication for connecting the access point and the communication apparatus (Pages 572-575, Sections 3-6 disclose different 802.11 standards based WLAN protocols including 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g, 802.11n, 802.11ac & 802.11ax that can be used for the first connection method and the second connection method.).
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, or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, or a method wherein: a second method of performing communication between an information processing apparatus and a printer (i.e. a communication apparatus) for connecting the information processing apparatus and the printer through an access point, and a first method of performing communication between an information processing apparatus and a printer for connecting the information processing apparatus and the printer directly, as disclosed by Sekiguchi, wherein the second method uses a second protocol (e.g. 802.11a), and the first method uses a first protocol different from the first (e.g. 802.11g), as taught by Chen. The motivation to do so would be to have an information processing apparatus, or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, or a method that can take advantage of new printers incorporating more recent 802.11 protocols such a s 802.11g when connecting the new printers to an access point, while continuing to support connections between the access point and legacy printers that only support different older 802.11 protocols such as 802.11a, by offering superior range building penetration.
Sekiguchi fails to disclose, but Takeshi further teaches wherein the first protocol includes network setup by network setup protocol, and the second protocol includes network setup by DPP, and network setup by DPP does not require input of information by a user (Fig 1 and [0014] & disclose that Wi-Fi I/F protocols such as 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g, 8-2.11n and 8-2.11ac include network setup using DPP or WPS. 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, or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, or a method wherein a second method of performing communication between an information processing apparatus and a printer (i.e. a communication apparatus) for connecting the information processing apparatus and the printer through an access point, and a first method of performing communication between an information processing apparatus and a printer for connecting the information processing apparatus and the printer directly, wherein the second method uses a second protocol (e.g. 802.11a), and the first method uses a first protocol different from the first (e.g. 802.11g), as disclosed by Sekiguchi in view of Chen, wherein the first protocol includes network setup by network setup protocol, and the second protocol includes network setup by DPP, and network setup by DPP does not require input of information by a user, as further taught by Takeshi. The motivation to do so would be to have an information processing apparatus, or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, or a method that can take advantage of new printers incorporating newer technologies such as DPP when connecting the new printers to an access point, while continuing to support connections between the access point and legacy printers that only support different older technologies such as WPS, by offering superior security through the use of DPP.
Sekiguchi fails to disclose, but Minakawa further teaches, wherein, based on the determination, the first connection method including network setup by network setup protocol is not displayed on the selection screen, and the second connection method including network setup by DPP is displayed on the selection screen (Fig 6 & col 6, lines 20-43 disclose a process where a printer determines that a connection scheme including DPP has been selected and displays a QR code image for the DPP scheme and does not display a QR image for a legacy scheme (i.e. a network setup protocol).).
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, or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, or a method wherein a second connection method of performing communication between an information processing apparatus and a printer (i.e. a communication apparatus) for connecting the information processing apparatus and the printer through an access point and using a second protocol including DPP, and a first method of performing communication between an information processing apparatus and a printer for connecting the information processing apparatus and the printer directly and using a first protocol including a network setup protocol, wherein the printer determines the first and second connection methods are executable, as disclosed by Sekiguchi in view of Chen and Takeshi, wherein, based on the determination, the first connection method including network setup by network setup protocol is not displayed on the selection screen, and the second connection method including network setup by DPP is displayed on the selection screen, as further taught by Minakawa. The motivation to do so would be to have an information processing apparatus, or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, or a method wherein a communication apparatus such as a printer determines to display a QR code for a second connection method including DPP and not display a QR code for a first connection method including a legacy network setup protocol, so that an information processing apparatus such as a mobile device can correctly capture the QR code for the second connection method including DPP, and not incorrectly capture the QR code for a legacy network setup protocol, in order to authenticate the communication apparatus to provide enhanced security.
Regarding Claim 2, Sekiguchi in view of Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa 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 Chen et al. (Dong Chen, Northwest Polytechnical University, “A Survey of IEEE 802.11 Protocols: Comparison and Prospective”, Advances in Engineering Research Vol. 141, 5th Internationals Conference on Mechatronics, Materials, Chemistry and Computer Engineering, 2017 )(herein after “Chen”) and Takeshi et al. (EP 3547732)(herein after “Takeshi”) and Minakawa et al. (US 10963198)(herein after “Minakawa”), 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa, 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 Chen et al. (Dong Chen, Northwest Polytechnical University, “A Survey of IEEE 802.11 Protocols: Comparison and Prospective”, Advances in Engineering Research Vol. 141, 5th Internationals Conference on Mechatronics, Materials, Chemistry and Computer Engineering, 2017 )(herein after “Chen”) and Takeshi et al. (EP 3547732)(herein after “Takeshi”) and Minakawa et al. (US 10963198)(herein after “Minakawa”), 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa, 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 Chen et al. (Dong Chen, Northwest Polytechnical University, “A Survey of IEEE 802.11 Protocols: Comparison and Prospective”, Advances in Engineering Research Vol. 141, 5th Internationals Conference on Mechatronics, Materials, Chemistry and Computer Engineering, 2017 )(herein after “Chen”) and Takeshi et al. (EP 3547732)(herein after “Takeshi”) and Minakawa et al. (US 10963198)(herein after “Minakawa”), 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa, 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa 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 Chen et al. (Dong Chen, Northwest Polytechnical University, “A Survey of IEEE 802.11 Protocols: Comparison and Prospective”, Advances in Engineering Research Vol. 141, 5th Internationals Conference on Mechatronics, Materials, Chemistry and Computer Engineering, 2017 )(herein after “Chen”) and Takeshi et al. (EP 3547732)(herein after “Takeshi”) and Minakawa et al. (US 10963198)(herein after “Minakawa”) 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa 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 Chen et al. (Dong Chen, Northwest Polytechnical University, “A Survey of IEEE 802.11 Protocols: Comparison and Prospective”, Advances in Engineering Research Vol. 141, 5th Internationals Conference on Mechatronics, Materials, Chemistry and Computer Engineering, 2017 )(herein after “Chen”) and Takeshi et al. (EP 3547732)(herein after “Takeshi”) and Minakawa et al. (US 10963198)(herein after “Minakawa”) 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa 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 Chen and Takeshi and Minakawa 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:
Fumihide et al. (WO 2020085019) discloses a Communication Device, Control Method of Communication Device, and Program.
Kawaura et al. (US 12096215) discloses a Recording Medium Storing Program for Causing Information Processing Apparatus Performing Wireless Communication with Communication Apparatus to Execute Communication Method, Communication Method, and Information Processing Apparatus.
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
/JACKIE ZUNIGA ABAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights