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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/18/24 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a storage”, “a display”, and “a controller” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification of the patent publication US 2024/0393991 shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification of the patent publication for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
[0035] The controller 11 controls the entire terminal device 10. The controller 11 is configured by, for example, one or more arithmetic devices (such as Central Processing Units (CPU) and the like). The controller 11 realizes its functions by reading and executing various programs stored in the storage 19.
[0036] The display 13 is a display device that displays various kinds of information to a user or the like. The display 13 can be configured by, for example, a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD), an organic Electro-luminescence (EL) display or the like.
[0039] The storage 19 is a storage device that stores various programs required for the operation of the terminal device 10 and various types of data. The storage 19 can be constituted by storage devices such as a Random Access Memory (RAM), a Hard Disk Drive (HDD), a Solid State Drive (SSD), a Read Only Memory (ROM) and the like, for example.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shibuya (US 2023/0273759).
Regarding claim 1, Shibuya teaches an information processing apparatus comprising (information processing apparatus 101; ¶¶ 0018-0020, Fig. 1):
a storage that stores an application capable of supporting print settings corresponding to a device in cooperation with a printer driver (printer driver and extension application 204; ¶¶ 0023-0026);
a display that displays a user interface screen on the basis of the application (print setting screen; ¶ 0029, ¶ 0048); and
a controller that determines the printer driver associated with the application (IPP Class Driver or UP Class Driver; ¶ 0030),
wherein the controller determines display contents of the user interface screen in accordance with the printer driver associated with the application (output print setting information; ¶¶ 0029-0031, ¶ 0048).
Regarding claim 2, Shibuya teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller determines to display the user interface screen with different display contents between when it is determined that the printer driver is an Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) class driver and when it is determined that the printer driver is a universal print class driver (“each of IPP Class Driver and UP Class Driver acquires capability information about the connected printing apparatus 1004 in such a way as to enable the user to designate a print function”; ¶¶ 0030-0031).
Regarding claim 3, Shibuya teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the display contents are contents related to some of the print settings that are not supported by the universal print class driver (print restriction information; ¶¶ 0064-0067, ¶ 0083, Figs. 6-7, ¶ 0086).
Regarding claim 4, Shibuya teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein some of the print settings not supported by the universal print class driver include a manuscript size, a sheet size, and a sheet type (print restrictions; ¶ 0067, ¶ 0083, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Shibuya teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller determines whether the printer driver associated with the application is the IPP class driver or the universal print class driver on a basis of a compatibility identifier obtained from device information managed by an Operating System (“device ID has, appended thereto, information (for example, information indicating a prefix) indicating whether the print data generation software 202 with which the extension application 204 is associated is IPP Class Driver or UP Class Driver”; ¶ 0078).
Regarding claim 6, Shibuya teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the controller determines, when the compatibility identifier could not be obtained, whether the printer driver associated with the application is the IPP class driver or the universal print class driver on the basis of a driver name obtained from the device information (“device ID has, appended thereto, information (for example, information indicating a prefix) indicating whether the print data generation software 202 with which the extension application 204 is associated is IPP Class Driver or UP Class Driver”; ¶ 0078).
Regarding claim 7, Shibuya teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller displays the printer driver associated with the application in an identifiable manner on the user interface screen (“the name of a printing apparatus in which printing has failed, the type of a printing apparatus, and a connection configuration, can also be displayed”; ¶ 0086).
Regarding claim 8, Shibuya teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller determines the printer driver associated with the application by using selection of the device as a trigger each time a printing operation is started (¶ 0031).
Regarding claim 9, Shibuya teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller determines display contents of the user interface screen in accordance with the printer driver associated with the application at the time of activation of the application (¶¶ 0030-0031, ¶ 0048).
Claims 10 and 11 recite similar limitations as claim 1, arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claims 10 and 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shiohara (US 2024/0036783) teaches An information processing apparatus that performs printing with either an IPP Class Driver or a UP Class Driver.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5244. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 PM 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.
/KENT YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681