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
2. 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.
3. 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 first execution unit, a second execution unit, a third execution unit in claim 19.
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 § 102
4. 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.
5. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-2, 7-12, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (US 2021/0096789 A1-IDS), hereinafter Nakamura.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches: (1) if the “next” button 705 of the AP information input screen 700 is pressed, the smartphone 104 stores the input information in the ROM 202, and closes the AP information input screen 700.
[0076] If a desired condition is satisfied in step S506, the smartphone 104 transmits, to the printer 103, the information to be used to establish connection to the AP 102 (step S510). The desired condition corresponds to a case in which the smartphone determines that the information of the AP 102 acquired from the two-dimensional code is sufficient, a case in which it is determined in step S508 that there is a wireless profile including the SSID of the AP 102, or a case in which it is determined in step S509 that the information of the AP 102 is input. In step S510, the smartphone 104 transmits the information (including the SSID, password, and encryption scheme) concerning the AP 102 to the printer 103. Next, the smartphone 104 disconnects the connection from the printer 103 (step S511), and is connected to the AP 102 (step S512). In step S512, the smartphone 104 performs a connection process to the AP 102 using the information of the AP 102 transmitted to the printer 103 in step S510, see 0075-0076 and 0081 (equivalent to executing first processing for transmitting information on an external access point to the communication apparatus based on a predetermined user operation to a screen displayed by the predetermined application program based on the predetermined application program being activated); (2) the smartphone 104 acquires a list of SSIDs detected by the OS (executing second processing of registering), and determines whether the list includes an SSID unique to the printer 103, which includes the unique identification information of the printer 103 acquired in step S502 (step S602). If it is determined in step S602 that the SSID unique to the printer 103 is included (YES in step S602), it is determined that detection of the printer 103 in the wireless setting mode succeeds (step S603), and the process of searching for the printer in the wireless setting mode ends (step S605), see 0084 (equivalent to executing second processing of registering, as information held by the predetermined application program, information representing the communication apparatus which has served as a transmission destination of the information on the external access point after executing the first processing); (3) in step S512, the smartphone 104 performs a connection process (third processing) to the AP 102 using the information of the AP 102 transmitted to the printer 103 in step S510. Therefore, the smartphone 104 can be connected to the AP 102 without requiring the user to reinput (equivalent to without accepting..) the password or the like, see 0075-0076, 0084 (equivalent to executing third processing for transmitting the information on the external access point to the communication apparatus based on activation of the predetermined application program and without accepting the predetermined user operation in a case that the predetermined application program is activated in a state in which the information representing any one communication apparatus is registered as information held by the predetermined application program by executing the second processing).
Regarding claim 2, the smartphone 104-fig.1C searches (four processing of searching) for the printer 103-fig.1C in a wireless setting mode, that whether SSID of the printer is detected and the AP corresponding to the SSID (information on the external AP) is searched for and detected, S503-fig.5A, see 0071
Regarding claim 7, the SSID of the AP complies with naming rule according to the manufacture.
Regarding claim 8, if the smartphone 104 starts a process of searching for a printer in the wireless setting mode, it searches for neighboring SSIDs (step S601). More specifically, the smartphone 104 issues an SSID search instruction to the OS.
Next, the smartphone 104 acquires a list of SSIDs detected by the OS, and determines whether the list includes an SSID unique to the printer 103, which includes the unique identification information of the printer 103 acquired in step S502 (step S602). If it is determined in step S602 that the SSID unique to the printer 103 is included (YES in step S602), it is determined that detection of the printer 103 in the wireless setting mode succeeds (step S603), and the process of searching for the printer in the wireless setting mode ends (step S605) (equivalent to wherein in a case that a plurality of communication apparatus operating in the predetermined mode are detected). In step S510, the smartphone 104 transmits the information (including the SSID, password, and encryption scheme) concerning the AP 102 to the printer 103 (first detected printer) in S510, see 0035, 0075-0076.
Regarding claim 9, to perform P2P connection, the first or second apparatus needs to specify the SSID of the connection target printer. To specify the SSID of the printer, the first or second apparatus performs a process (to be referred to as an AP search hereinafter) of searching for the SSIDs of neighboring APs, and selects the SSID of the printer from the list of the acquired SSIDs, thereby deciding a connection destination, see 0035.
Regarding claim 10, see fig. 1C and 0043.
Regarding claim 11, this claim relates to searching for the communication apparatus via the access point, and displaying success or failure. This is disclosed in Nakamura, Fig. 5A, S514- S517.
Regarding claim 12, this claim relates to the information on the AP not passing through the AP, then connecting to the AP, and then searching for the communication apparatus via the AP. This is disclosed in Nakamura, Fig. 5A, S505, S512 and S514.
Regarding claim 19, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Nakamura for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The smartphone 104-fig.1C includes a ROM 242 and a CPU 241 to cause the smartphone to perform the claimed steps. The smartphone includes the units (not shown) for performing the claimed steps.
Regarding claim 20, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Nakamura for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The laptop 101-fig.1C includes a ROM 202 storing instructions (non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program configured) to cause the laptop to perform the claimed steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
8. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. 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.
10. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, in view of Nishida (US 2018/0124847 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura discloses if it is determined that detection of the printer in the wireless setting mode fails (the AP of the unique SSID is not detected) (NO in step S504), the smartphone 104 displays a detection failure screen 800 shown in FIG. 8A on the display apparatus 208 (step S519), see 0073 (equivalent to in a case that the communication apparatus operating in the predetermined mode is not detected by executing the fourth processing, the predetermined notification area is not displayed). Nakamura, however, fails to teach a predetermined notification area for notifying a user that the communication apparatus operating in the predetermined mode is detected is displayed.
Nishida from the same endeavor as that of Nakamura teaches the name of the model of the printer 100-fig.1, for example, is displayed in the current printer display area 81a-fig.2, see 0077 (equivalent to a predetermined notification area for notifying a user that the communication apparatus operating in the predetermined mode is detected is displayed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a printer display area taught by Nishida into the system of Nakamura. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve user convenience when accessing a printer wirelessly by displaying the printer area with a closet proximity for usage.
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura discloses if it is determined in step S503 that the printer in the wireless setting mode is detected (the AP of the unique SSID is detected) (YES in step S504), the smartphone 104 performs P2P connection to the printer 103 (step S505). More specifically, the smartphone 104 connects the wireless LAN I/F 246 to the access point (printer 103) of the unique SSID, see 0072. On the other hand, if it is determined that detection of the printer in the wireless setting mode fails (the AP of the unique SSID is not detected) (NO in step S504), the smartphone 104 displays a detection failure screen 800 shown in FIG. 8A on the display apparatus 208 (step S519). If the user presses an “end” button 802 (second button) of the detection failure screen 800 (NO in step S518), the smartphone 104 ends the wireless setting instruction process. If the user presses a “retry” button 801 (first button) (YES in step S518), the smartphone 104 returns the process to the process (step S503) of searching again for the printer 103 in the wireless setting mode, see 0073.
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura teaches: (1) if it is determined in step S503 that the printer in the wireless setting mode is detected (the AP of the unique SSID is detected) (YES in step S504), the smartphone 104 performs P2P connection to the printer 103 (step S505), see 0072; (2) If the user presses a “retry” button 801 (first button) (YES in step S518), the smartphone 104 returns the process to the process (step S503) of searching again for the printer 103 in the wireless setting mode, see 0073, (equivalent to connection…established), and the SSID of the AP is transmitted via the wireless setting mode to the printer.
11. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2021/0037160 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Nokamura discloses all claimed limitations, except wherein the communication apparatus corresponding to the information registered as the information held by the predetermined application program is instructed to print.
Watanabe from the same endeavor as that of Nokamura teaches: (1) the RAM 203-fig. 2 stores program control variables. In the RAM 203, a memory area is also provided for storing a setting value registered by the user, such as a wireless LAN settting, management data of the printer 101, and information indicating whether it is a first time when the printer 101 is set after the power supply of the printer 101 is turned on, see 0027; (2) the CPU 221-fig. 2 receives an operation of the user and starts a wireless LAN setting application. The wireless LAN setting application is an application for setting a communication mode for the printer 101. The wireless LAN setting application may have another function, such as a function of transmitting a print job to the printer 101 and causing the printer 101 to execute printing, see 0113.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a mechanism in which a registered printer associated with wireless LAN setting and management data of the printer can be instructed to print, taught by Watanabe into the system of Nakamura. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to execute a printer to print according to setting command and sets of operation modes via an instructed printing command.
12. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, in view of Ando (US 2012/0054338 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Nakamura discloses all claimed limitations, except wherein the external access point corresponding to information transmitted to the communication apparatus by executing the third processing is any one of access points found by the communication apparatus.
Ando from the same endeavor as that of Nakamura teaches when the manual wireless setting mode is selected, as described above, the printer 10 searches for the APs existing around the printer 10, and causes the list including the SSIDs of the APs that have been found to be displayed on the display unit of the printer 10. The user is aware of the SSID (abcdefgh) displayed on the display unit 22 of the PC 20 in S16 in FIG. 2. Therefore, assuming that a plurality of SSIDs (e.g., the SSID of the AP existing in the home of the user and the SSID of the AP existing in the other home) is displayed on the display unit of the printer 10, the user is able to select an SSID of an AP to be set to the printer 10, in other words, the SSID displayed in S16 in FIG. 2 (e.g., the SSID of the AP existing in the home of the user) from the plurality of SSIDs, see 0054.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a process in which an AP of a plurality of APs can be searched, displayed and be selected at the printer, taught by Ando into the system of Nakamura. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide assistance to a user with printing need in a wireless environment.
Allowable subject matter
13. Claims 6 and 14-17 are rejected based on its dependency, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
14. Claim 19 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yokoyama et al. (US 20170041977 A1); Shimada et al. (US 20180248697 A1); Matsuda (US 20050099962 A1) are cited, and considered pertinent to the instant specification.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC C HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3147. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420 (Gary.mui@uspto.gov). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DUC C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465