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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 02/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11 are still pending in this application.
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 3, 5, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saigusa (US 20210240412), further in view of Sano et al. (US 20040125145) and Osaki et al. (US 20240053936).
Regarding claim 1, claim 2 recites all the limitations as in the claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reason as claim 2.
Regarding claim 2, Saigusa teaches a system including a cloud print service comprising an information processing apparatus on which a printer driver is installed, the information processing apparatus includes (150 in fig. 2): one or more processors; and at least one memory in communication with the one or more processors and having stored thereon instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the information processing apparatus to function as: a reception unit configured to receive printer information about a printer registered with the cloud print service from the cloud print service (801 in fig. 8A: list of cloud printer and s1301 in fig. 13); an acquisition unit configured to acquire information indicating whether an extension application is present from the printer information (804 in fig. 8b: extension option 1); a display unit configured to display a printer list based on the information acquired by the acquisition unit (p0084: The client computer 100 obtains information about the printer 200 selected by the user from the cloud print service 500); a selection unit configured to select a printer from the printer list (s1303 in fig. 13); and an installation unit configured to install the printer driver and the extension application with the selected printer (S1310 in fig. 13); a registration unit configured to register a printer (S410-S419: register in fig. 4); a storage unit configured to acquire an extended setup information file for the registered printer and store the acquired extended setup information file together with printer information about the registered printer (S1310 in fig. 13: obtain print extension application form print extension application distribution service); and a responding unit configured to return a response to an inquiry from the acquisition unit, the response indicating whether the extension application is present (s1306 in fig. 13).
Saigusa does not teach wherein in a case where the extension application is present to at least one specific printer from the printer list, the display unit displays the printer list including an icon to identify the presence of the extension application to the at least one specific printer.
Sano teaches wherein in a case where the extension application is present to at least one specific printer from the printer list (fig. 3: 301), the display unit displays the printer list including an icon to identify the presence of the extension application to the at least one specific printer (fig. 3. 301). Changing from Icon with printer specific information (the extension application is also specific information to the printer) to a different icon would have been a matter of choice in design since the claimed structures and the function they perform are the same as the prior art (fig. 3. 301). In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) citing In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 719, 25 USPQ2d 1076, 1078 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also stare decisis regarding changes in size or proportion in MPEP § 2144.04.
Saigusa and Sano are combinable because they both deal with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Saigusa with the teaching of Sano for purpose of to provide a data processing apparatus with excellent operability (p0008).
Saigusa in view of Sano does not teach displays the printer list including printer icon for each printer and adds a mark to the printer icon of the at least one specific printer to identify the presence of the extension application, and the printer icon including the mark is selectable to initiate installation of the extension application to the at least one specific printer.
Osaki teaches displays the list including printer icon for each printer and adds a mark to the printer icon of the at least one specific printer to identify the presence of the extension application (fig. 10: 110 and 120), and the printer icon including the mark is selectable to initiate installation of the extension application to the at least one specific printer (fig. 11: install).
Saigusa in view of Sano and Osaki are combinable because they both deal with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Saigusa in view of Sano with the teaching of Osaki for purpose of to realize additional functions provided by an application and is preferably installed to realize the additional functions provided by the application although even when not installed operation of the application is possible (hereinafter such optional device is referred to as “recommended optional device”) (p0011).
Regarding claim 4, Saigusa teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein in a case where the storage unit has not acquired the extended setup information file for the registered printer, the responding unit returns the response indicating that the extension application is not present (s1306 in fig. 13: NO).
Regarding claim 6, The structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 6. Thus, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, The structural elements of apparatus claim 4 perform all of the steps of method claim 8. Thus, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Saigusa’s further teaching on: A computer-readable memory that contains instructions, which when executed by a processor perform steps in a method (p0022).
Claims 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saigusa in view of Sano and Osaki as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Torri (US 20150062632).
Regarding claim 5, Saigusa in view of Sano and Osaki and Torr teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein with the response indicating that the extension application is not present to a specific printer returned by the responding unit, the display unit displays the printer list such that the presence of the extension application to the specific printer is unidentifiable (Torri: fig. 18: device icon)
Saigusa in view of Sano and Osaki and Torri are combinable because they both deal with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Saigusa in view of Sano with the teaching of Torri for purpose of select an image forming apparatus based on a device search on a network (p0009).
Regarding claim 9, The structural elements of apparatus claim 5 perform all of the steps of method claim 9. Thus, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saigusa in view of Sano and Osaki as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yasuda (US 20210240424 ).
Regarding claim 11, (New) Saigusa in view of Sano and Osaki teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the display unit is configured to: display printer icons such that printers having a print setting extension application are distinguishable from printers lacking the print setting extension application (Osaki: fig. 10: 110 and 120).
Saigusa in view of Sano and Osaki does not teach display the printer list such that printer information received from the cloud print service is distinguishable from printer information detected by searching a network for printers;
Yasuda teaches display the printer list such that printer information received from the cloud print service is distinguishable from printer information detected by searching a network for printers (fig. 6B).
Saigusa in view of Sano and Osaki and Yasuda are combinable because they both deal with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Saigusa in view of Sano with the teaching of Yasuda for purpose of provide better user friendly system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 5712705254. 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights