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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “driver unit” and “display unit” in claim 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The “driver unit” is being interpreted to cover the CPU 101 described in the specification (par. 28) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The “display unit” is being interpreted to cover the display 107 such as an LCD described in the specification (par. 27) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 12, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 8817295 B2) in view of Han (US 10534568 B2), and Yamaguchi (US 20090251730 A1).
Takahashi et al disclose a system that includes a printer and a PC or host device connected to a network, the host device being configured to use the printer with a printer driver being installed therein, and an external server connected with the network, which is configured to provide the printer driver.
Referring to claim 1:
Takahashi et al discloses storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform the following steps in an information processing apparatus having a driver that causes an image printing apparatus to execute image printing (col. 4, line 66 to col. 5, line 4; and col. 5, lines 34-37), the steps comprising:
displaying a screen for notifying the update of the driver without notifying the update of the firmware (Fig. 29 is an example of a screen image displayed by the PC for confirming whether to update the printer driver being installed therein in the second embodiment according to one or more aspects of the present invention).
Han discloses displaying a screen for notifying the update of the firmware without notifying the update of the driver (col. 13, line 63 to col. 14, line 3: firmware update screen control unit 232 displays a firmware update screen, which is used for receiving an instruction of whether to update the firmware or not, the firmware update screen control unit 232 displaying the firmware update screen in one embodiment illustrated in FIG. 15 on the operation panel 27 whereby a user can instruct the updating of firmware by pressing an “OK” button).
A combination of the above teachings by Takahashi et al and Han would not result in displaying a single screen for notifying both an update of firmware for the image printing apparatus and an update of the driver. However, Yamaguchi teaches that when the firmware in an image forming apparatus is to be updated, the printer driver in the client PC may also be required to be updated along with the firmware (par. 6), i.e., based on the result of information analysis processing. In that event, the screen displayed to the user would indicate that with an update of the firmware for the image printing apparatus, an update of the printer driver is also required.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Takahashi et al in view of Han and further in view of Yamaguchi whereby the computer performs the steps of displaying a first screen for notifying both an update of firmware for the image printing apparatus and an update of the driver, displaying a second screen for notifying the update of the firmware without notifying the update of the driver, and displaying a third screen for notifying the update of the driver without notifying the update of the firmware in order to display a single screen for notifying a user of the updated driver and/or firmware based on what is required and to facilitate printing system administration by reducing user actions.
Referring to claim 12:
In the above combination of Takahashi et al, Han, and Yamaguchi, given the item (screen button) for execution of a driver update in Takahashi et al and a firmware update in Han, it is implied, if not inherent, in view of Yamaguchi, that in the combination, the first screen includes a first item for executing a process of the update of the firmware and a second item for executing a process of the update of the driver, the second screen includes the first item and does not include the second item; and the third screen includes the second item and does not include the first item.
Referring to claim 23:
This claim is the method for performing the corresponding functions of the computer as set forth in claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
Referring to claim 24:
In the combination of Takahashi et al, Han, and Yamaguchi a driver unit configured to cause an image printing apparatus to execute image printing would be included (e.g., see col. 5, lines 34-37 in Takahashi et al) and a display unit configured to display the screens for notifying as set forth above would be included (e.g., see col. 15, line 55 to col. 17, line 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art searched and of record neither anticipates nor suggests all the limitations added in these claimed combinations.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed (i.e., a descriptive title that distinguishes the invention and is not a generic or general description). The new title should take into account any amendments to the claims to best indicate the claimed invention.
The title must be as short and specific as possible (see 37 CFR 1.72(a)). Applicant should distill a description of the claimed invention into as few words as possible to capture the essence of the claimed invention. Rather than reciting statutory categories (apparatus, method, product) and some generic descriptor (e.g., information processing), a title that is specific, but characterizes the essence or key aspect(s) of the claimed invention, should be submitted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 29 January 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the statement(s) (has / have) been considered by the examiner as indicated below.
Applicant has provided an explanation of relevance of cited document JP 2011-186588 A on page 1 of the specification.
The relevance of the other cited documents in the IDS can be found in Parent Application No. 18/310,078.
Cited Art
The prior art and other references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chigusa (US 9342476 B2) discloses when the information processing apparatus 10 receives the latest device controlling firmware transmitted by the manufacturer's Web server SV2 in response to the transmission request message, the information processing apparatus 10 displays a message asking the user whether the device controlling firmware should be updated to the latest one on the display unit. If the user viewing the display makes an operation input to make the update to the latest device controlling firmware with the operation input unit, the information processing apparatus 10 transmits the latest device controlling firmware to the printer to be registered, and updates the device controlling firmware to the latest one (see col. 8, lines 13-25).
Hadano (US 9696948 B2) discloses a firmware check instruction screen (Fig. 10A) and firmware update confirmation screens (Figs. 10B-10D) that the printer 110 displays on the panel (see col. 11-12). Also see printer management screens (Fig. 18A-19F) in other embodiments that address firmware update processing.
Uchida (US 10001956 B2) discloses the control unit 610 determines whether the user has issued an instruction for update or replacement processing with respect to a driver. Specifically, it is determined that updating is to be performed if the following conditions is satisfied: “update existing printer driver” has been selected on the installation method selection screen 810. See col. 7-9.
Yamada (US 10136018 B2) discloses the firmware icon 50e is displayed as the startup icon 50 and further the firmware warning icon 60e is displayed, the user can recognize that the firmware of the MFP 30 can be updated easily and quickly, without starting up the remote use application 27. Optionally, in response to a pressing operation to the firmware icon 50e, or the indicating operation or the pressing operation to the firmware warning icon 60e, information indicating that the firmware can be updated may be displayed, or causing the MFP 30 to execute updating of the firmware (see col. 12, lines 47-57).
Nakamura (US 10430130 B2) discloses screen 116 displays a notification 116-1 indicating that the firmware update is necessary, and information 116-2 indicating the version requested by the web application C and the current version of the image forming apparatus 200. When the operation component (button) 116-3 is operated on the screen 116, the image forming apparatus 200 transmits a download request of the latest version of the firmware to the application server 300 and updates the firmware (see col. 15, lines 24-31 and Fig. 11).
Koujiro (US 12504932 B2) discloses an image forming apparatus includes a display; and one or more controllers that control update processing of firmware for driving a device, wherein the controller displays, on the display, a first screen for confirming to a user whether to update the firmware, in a case where an instruction to update the firmware is received, and displays, on the display, a second screen for receiving an input of authentication information by an administrator, in a case where update of the firmware is permitted.
Mitani (US 20060072140 A1) discloses, alternatively, after accepting the changes to the edited printer driver, generating a window or interface that prompts the user to indicate whether or not to update the other printer drivers that are using the same port as the edited printer driver (par. 25).
Fujinawa et al (US 20060158680 A1) disclose a printer system comprises a superordinate apparatus in which a printer driver and firmware are installed; a printer that downloads the firmware from the superordinate apparatus to store the same in a memory, the printer being controlled based on the firmware stored in the memory, wherein the superordinate apparatus comprises an install controller that controls installation of the firmware in association with installation of the printer driver.
Yamaguchi (US 20090251730 A1) disclose when the firmware in the image forming apparatus is to be updated, the printer driver in the client PC may also be required to be updated along with the firmware (par. 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott Rogers whose telephone number is 571-272-7467. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am to 7 pm flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached on 571-270-5254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Scott A Rogers/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
10 January 2026