DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawing(s) filed on 03/06/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
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.
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
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katano et al. (US 2017/0286021) in view of Thijssen et al. (US 2015/0212773), hereinafter ‘Katano’ and ‘Thijssen’.
Regarding Claim 1:
Katano discloses an information processing apparatus that executes a predetermined process based on data received from a mobile terminal (Katano: Fig. 1 ‘information processing apparatus 101 (e.g., printer) wirelessly communicates with a communication device 151 (e.g., mobile phone)’ [0022]), the information processing apparatus comprising:
a function configured to obtain information from the mobile terminal by first wireless communication after establishing communication connection with the mobile terminal, the information being necessary for second wireless communication different from the first wireless communication (Katano: Fig. 12 ‘in S1005 the short-range wireless communication unit 110 requests the short-range wireless communication unit 157 for information of a communication protocol that the communication device 151 can use…communication formats such as Wi-Fi® and the like. The short-range wireless communication unit 157 responds…with information of communication protocols that it can use itself. Accordingly, both devices can comprehend communication protocols usable with each other, other than Bluetooth® Low Energy.’ [0098]);
a function configured to disconnect the communication connection with the mobile terminal by the first wireless communication and to establish communication connection with the mobile terminal by the second wireless communication in response to obtainment of the information necessary for the second wireless communication (Katano: Fig. 12 ‘Once the switch request and response are successfully performed…the communication device 151 switches the communication unit used to communicate with the information processing device 101 from the short-range wireless communication unit 157 to the communication unit 156…After performing the switch, in step S1013, the short-range wireless communication unit 110 transmits a release request…so the Bluetooth® Low Energy connection between the devices ends’ ¶¶[0100-0101]);
a notification function configured to notify of, when an error relating to the predetermined process occurs, the error (Katano: Fig. 8A wherein user of the mobile device is notified of an error at the printer, what type of error (e.g., printer is out of sheet) and how to recover from the error (e.g., set sheets in printer) ¶[0063])
Katano does not expressly disclose a function configured to measure a distance between the information processing apparatus and the mobile terminal by the second wireless communication, by a method other than the first wireless communication based on the measured distance.
Thijssen discloses a function configured to measure a distance between the information processing apparatus and the mobile terminal by the second wireless communication, by a method other than the first wireless communication based on the measured distance.
Thijssen discloses measuring a distance from a mobile device and a printer, and based on that distance, an operator is notified (e.g., the printer is low on paper, jammed, out of staples etc.). See Fig. 5 ¶[0045]. Thijssen further discloses that this distance can be determined by using “Wi-Fi triangulation” ¶[0006].
Katano in view of Thijssen are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g. both disclose methods of notifying a user of a mobile device that there is a printer error.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discloses a function configured to measure a distance between the information processing apparatus and the mobile terminal by the second wireless communication, by a method other than the first wireless communication based on the measured distance.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to notify or not notify the user of the mobile device based on how far they are from the printer as disclosed by Thijssen in the Background of Invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Katano with Thijssen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2:
The proposed combination of Katano in view of Thijssen further discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first wireless communication is communication based on Bluetooth Low Energy.
Katano teaches that “The short-range wireless communication unit 157 is a configuration that wirelessly connects to devices such as the information processing device 101 and so forth at close distance. Bluetooth® Low Energy is used as the communication format of the short-range wireless communication unit 157 in the present embodiment” ¶[0033]).
Regarding Claim 4:
The proposed combination of Katano in view of Thijssen further discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined process is a print process, and wherein the information processing apparatus is an image forming apparatus that executes the print process based on data received from the mobile terminal.
Katano discloses “The print engine 155 performs image formation on a recording medium such as paper or the like using a recording agent such as ink or the like, based on…a print job received from the information processing device 101 or the like, and outputs printing results.” ¶[0036].
Regarding Claim 6:
The proposed combination of Katano in view of Thijssen further discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the notification function transmits a notification for displaying a screen indicating the occurrence of the error to the mobile terminal by the second wireless communication in a case where the measured distance is equal to or more than a preset threshold.
In the rejection of claim 1, Katano teaches wherein user of the mobile device is notified of an error at the printer, what type of error (e.g., printer is out of sheet) and how to recover from the error (e.g., set sheets in printer) ¶[0063]; Fig. 8A. Katano further discloses two methods of communication, primary method is Bluetooth Low Energy, and secondary method is WiFi (¶[0098]).
Additionally, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Thijssen discloses measuring a distance from a mobile device and a printer, and based on that distance, an operator is notified (e.g., the printer is low on paper, jammed, out of staples etc.). See Fig. 5 ¶[0045]. Thijssen further discloses that this distance can be determined by using “Wi-Fi triangulation” ¶[0006].
Thijssen further discloses “issuing the warning in case the operator distance is larger than a operator threshold distance.” ¶[0013].
Katano in view of Thijssen are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g. both disclose methods of notifying a user of a mobile device that there is a printer error.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discloses wherein the notification function transmits a notification for displaying a screen indicating the occurrence of the error to the mobile terminal by the second wireless communication in a case where the measured distance is equal to or more than a preset threshold. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to notify or not notify the user of the mobile device based on how far they are from the printer as disclosed by Thijssen in the Background of Invention. Thijssen further discloses that “the operator may not be warned on the mobile device in case he is close enough to the image processing device to observe the status of the image processing device directly.” (¶[0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Katano with Thijssen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7:
The proposed combination of Katano in view of Thijssen further discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the notification function causes a display unit of the information processing apparatus to display a screen indicating the occurrence of the error in a case where the measured distance is less than a preset threshold.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Thijssen discloses measuring a distance from a mobile device and a printer, and based on that distance, an operator is notified (e.g., the printer is low on paper, jammed, out of staples etc.). See Fig. 5 ¶[0045]. Thijssen further discloses that this distance can be determined by using “Wi-Fi triangulation” ¶[0006].
Thijssen further discloses that “the operator may not be warned on the mobile device in case he is close enough to the image processing device to observe the status of the image processing device directly.” (¶[0014]).
Katano in view of Thijssen are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g. both disclose methods of notifying a user of a mobile device that there is a printer error.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the notification function causes a display unit of the information processing apparatus to display a screen indicating the occurrence of the error in a case where the measured distance is less than a preset threshold. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to notify or not notify the user of the mobile device based on how far they are from the printer as disclosed by Thijssen in the Background of Invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Katano with Thijssen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8:
The proposed combination of Katano in view of Thijssen further discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein another threshold larger than the preset threshold is set, and wherein the notification function sounds a buzzer provided in the information processing apparatus in a case where the measured distance is equal to or more than the preset threshold and less than the other threshold.
Thijssen explicitly teaches a larger threshold relative to a preset threshold “operator threshold distance 23…larger than…operator threshold distance 21” (¶[0042]; See Fig. 4A)
Thijssen discloses a local warning device including a sound warning system, which corresponds to an apparatus-provided audible alert (buzzer/speaker); (¶[0043]).
Thijssen further explains that mobile warnings may be suppressed when the operator is within a warning distance of the local warning system (sound), e.g., the local sound warning is effective/selected in a bounded proximity region. In the intermediate band distance ≥ threshold 21 and < threshold 23, the apparatus outputs the local sound warning system (buzzer-equivalent), consistent with Thijssen’s teaching to rely on local warning (sound) within a warning distance region rather than issuing a mobile warning; (¶[0042]; See Fig. 4A).
Katano in view of Thijssen are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g. both disclose methods of notifying a user of a mobile device that there is a printer error.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein another threshold larger than the preset threshold is set, and wherein the notification function sounds a buzzer provided in the information processing apparatus in a case where the measured distance is equal to or more than the preset threshold and less than the other threshold. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to notify or not notify the user of the mobile device based on how far they are from the printer as disclosed by Thijssen in the Background of Invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Katano with Thijssen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9: (drawn to a method)
The proposed combination of Katano in view of Thijssen, explained in the rejection of apparatus claim 1, renders obvious the steps of the method of claim 9 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10: (drawn to a computer-readable storage medium)
The proposed combination of Katano in view of Thijssen, explained in the rejection of apparatus claim 1 and method claim 9, renders obvious the computer-readable medium of claim 10 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 1 and 9 are equally applicable to claim 10.
It is noted that Katano discloses a computer-readable storage medium at least at ¶¶[0025-0027].
14. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katano and Thijssen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim (US 2023/0336980).
Regarding Claim 3:
The proposed combination of Katano and Thijssen discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the second wireless communication is communication based on Ultra Wide Band of IEEE802.15.4z standard.
Lim discloses wherein the second wireless communication is communication based on Ultra Wide Band of IEEE802.15.4z standard.
Lim discloses wherein a mobile terminal may communicate with another device such as a printer using UWB protocol (¶[0042]. Lim further discloses a distance between the two devices can be measured (¶[0051]. Lastly, Lim discloses that the measuring may conform to IEEE802.15.4z standard (¶[0052]).
Katano, Thijssen & Lim are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor; e.g. all disclose methods of communication between a mobile device and a printer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the second wireless communication is communication based on Ultra Wide Band of IEEE802.15.4z standard.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to accurately locate devices by using a well-known protocol to enable extremely precise tracking and location. Additionally, UWB allows data transmission to happen with greater speed and capacity, and is more secure than Bluetooth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Katano, Thijssen & Lim to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
15. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katano in view of Thijssen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogino (US 10,895,837).
Regarding Claim 5:
The proposed combination of Katano in view of Thijssen further discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the error includes an error due to paper jam (Thijssen: ‘paper jam errors’ ¶[0034]; Katano: ‘sheet jamming’ ¶[0002]), an error due to sheet out (Katano: Fig. 8A ‘Out of Sheets, Set Sheets in Printer and Press OK’; Thijssen: ‘out-of-paper errors’ ¶[0034]), an error due to toner out (Thijssen: ‘out of toner errors’ ¶[0002]; Katano: ‘ink running low’ ¶[0123];),
Katano in view of Thijssen does not expressly disclose wherein the error includes an error due to a printed matter left behind.
Ogino discloses an error due to a printed matter left behind.
Ogino teaches determining whether or not the user has left the image forming apparatus based on the result of a human detection sensor (Fig. 10: Step S620), and if the user has left and there “remains an image that has been output from the document feeding mechanism 122” (Fig. 10: Step S630), then the user is notified. (Col. 11, lines 35-51).
Katano, Thijssen & Ogino are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., all disclose notifying a user that there is a printer error.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose an error due to a printed matter left behind.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so to remind the user that they left the printout behind so that they can recover it. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Katano, Thijssen & Ogino to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumamoto (US 9,395,939) discloses a print shop management method for handling re-assignment of print jobs after a printer error occurs. After a print job is assigned to a printing device, the print shop management system monitors the status of the printers. When a printer error occurs, re-assignment decisions is made based on the severity of the error, so that less severe errors can be resolved by the operator without job re-assignment, while more severe errors cause the print job to be automatically re-assigned to another printer. For some errors, the print shop management system may notify the operator of the error, and wait for a timeout period; if the operator does not respond within the timeout period, the print job will be re-assigned to another printer. The handling of a printer error may be affected by other factors such as time of day, physical proximity of an operator, etc.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, PST.
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 M Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681