DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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: a print information acquisition unit, a printing unit, a distance information acquisition unit, in claims 1-2.
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. [0028], [0036]-[0037] of PG Pub 2024/0297941 of application 18/592,034 disclose that a processor acts as the above units, therefore they don’t invoke 35 U.S.C 112(b).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kunimatsu (US 2019/0239259).
With respect to claim 1 (similarly claims 10-11), Kunimatsu teaches a printing device (e.g. a printer 100 Fig 1 [0024], Fig 2 [0035]) comprising:
a connection processor (e.g. CPU 301 Fig 3 [0035]) configured to establish wireless communication connection with a plurality of terminal devices conforming to a neighbor awareness network (NAN) standard (e.g. to establish wireless communication connection with communication apparatuses 101, 103-104 Fig 1 conforming to NAN standard, [0024]-[0025], [0036] communication unit 308, Figs 4-5 [0040]-[0042]);
a print information acquisition unit (e.g. communication unit 308 [0036]) configured to acquire image data to be printed from any one of the plurality of terminal devices using the wireless communication connection (e.g. to acquire image data to be printed from 101 [0026] using the communication connection);
a printing unit (e.g. printing unit 305 Fig 3) configured to print the image data (e.g. prints the image, [0026], [0036]); and
a transmission controller (e.g. CPU 301 through communication unit 308) configured to perform control to transmit the image data to one or more terminal devices included in the plurality of terminal devices using the wireless communication connection when the image data is printed (e.g. to control the communication unit 308 to transmit the image of [0026], [0036] to communication apparatus 101 of Fig 1 using the wireless communication connection when the printing is completed and the image data is printed as suggested in Figs 4-5 S411 and F513, since the communication unit 308 allows printer 100 and communication apparatus 101 to transmit/receive content data, [0058]).
With respect to claim 3, Kunimatsu teaches the printing device according to claim 1, wherein the transmission controller is configured to perform control not to transmit the image data to the terminal device as a transmission source of the image data (e.g. not to transmit the image data the communication apparatus that is non-master and non-sync since it transmits neither a sync beacon nor a discovery beacon [0028]).
With respect to claim 4, Kunimatsu teaches the printing device according to claim 1, wherein the terminal device as a transmission source of the image data, the terminal device as a transmission destination of the image data, and the printing device are devices belonging to the same NAN cluster (e.g. communication apparatus 101 and printer 100 are devices belonging to the same NAN cluster 110, see Fig 1).
With respect to claim 5, Kunimatsu teaches the printing device according to claim 1, wherein the print information acquisition unit further acquire, using the wireless communication connection, print setting information for designating a print setting for printing the image data (e.g. acquiring using the wireless communication connection, print setting/service list for designating a print setting/service list for printing the image data, as suggested in [0045]-[0046]), and the transmission controller does not transmit the image data to any of the plurality of terminal devices when the print setting information does not include information for designating a predetermined print setting (e.g. the printer 100 can, for example, have a setting value indicating that it provides a print service to a specific apparatus alone, and when the TA of a message in F505 is different from the address of the specific apparatus, the printer 100 can perform a process such as the exclusion of a print service from a service list to be transmitted [0046]).
With respect to claim 6, Kunimatsu teaches the printing device according to claim 5, wherein when the print setting information does not include information for instructing printing of the image data on a predetermined printing medium, the transmission controller does not transmit the image data to any of the plurality of terminal devices (e.g. when the TA of a message in F505 is different from the address of the specific apparatus, the printer 100 can perform a process such as the exclusion of a print service from a service list to be transmitted [0046]).
With respect to claim 7, Kunimatsu teaches the printing device according to claim 5, wherein when the print setting information does not include information for instructing printing of the image data at a predetermined image quality, the transmission controller does not transmit the image data to any of the plurality of terminal devices (e.g. when the TA of a message in F505 is different from the address of the specific apparatus, the printer 100 can perform a process such as the exclusion of a print service from a service list to be transmitted [0046]).
With respect to claim 8, Kunimatsu teaches the printing device according to claim 1, wherein the transmission controller is configured to end transmission of the image data based on a comparison result between the number of copies of the image data printed by the printing unit and the number of the terminal devices to which the image data is transmitted (e.g. end transmission of image data after printing is complete and a notification in that regard is sent Fig 4 S411 and the NAN data link is terminated S412, which steps are based on a comparison result between the number of copies of the image data printed by the printing unit and the number of the terminal devices to which the image data is transmitted, as suggested in [0048]).
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 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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunimatsu (US 2019/0239259) in view of Jung (US 2022/0103332).
With respect to claim 2, Kunimatsu teaches the printing device according to claim 1.
However, Kunimatsu fails to teach further comprising: a distance information acquisition unit configured to acquire, for each of the plurality of terminal devices, distance information indicating a distance between the terminal device and the printing device measured conforming to the NAN standard, wherein the transmission controller is configured to determine the terminal device as a transmission destination of the image data based on the distance information.
Jung teaches a distance information acquisition unit configured to acquire, for each of the plurality of terminal devices, distance information indicating a distance between a terminal device and an external device measured conforming to the NAN standard (e.g. device 101 acquires, for each of the plurality of terminal devices, distance information indicating a distance between terminal device 101 and an external device measured conforming to the NAN standard, see [0197]-[0201] Fig 25) , wherein the transmission controller is configured to determine the terminal device as a transmission destination of the image data based on the distance information (e.g. The NAN device may measure an RSSI associated with a signal received from an external device in the 6 GHz frequency band, and if the measured RSSI is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, it is determined that the external device is located within a coverage area of the 6 GHz frequency band. If the measured RSSI is greater than the threshold value, it is determined that the external device is located outside the coverage area of the 6 GHz frequency band [0197]).
Kunimatsu and Jung are analogous art because they all pertain to managing devices in a NAN cluster. Therefore, it would have been obvious to people having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kunimatsu with the teachings of Jung to include: further comprising: a distance information acquisition unit configured to acquire, for each of the plurality of terminal devices, distance information indicating a distance between the terminal device and the printing device measured conforming to the NAN standard, wherein the transmission controller is configured to determine the terminal device as a transmission destination of the image data based on the distance information, as taught by Jung in Fig 25 [0197]-[0201]). The benefit of the modification would be to provide an efficient management of the devices within the NAN cluster.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM SIDDO whose telephone number is (571)272-4508. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30PM.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 5712703438. 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.
/IBRAHIM SIDDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681