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 .
Claims 1-11 are pending.
This is in response to communications filed on 1/12/26.
Claim Interpretation
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent
limitations require only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent is not met. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by
the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex Parte Schulhauser. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may
be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or
B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both
steps A and B (MPEP 2111.04).
Claim 1 recites a method claim with the mutually exclusive limitations “external apparatus being able to be set to the first language corresponding to the obtained information” and “external apparatus being unable to be set to the first language corresponding to the obtained information”. The BRI includes only one condition from the two mutually exclusive conditions. For compact prosecution, Examiner is addressing the limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-6 recite the limitations “when no language is set …”, “in a case where the external equipment …”, “if it is determined that …”, “based on a fact that setting …”.. The BRI does not include associated functions based on the conditions when method can be practiced without conditions being met. BRI does not include obtaining information of a second language set for the OS when no language is set for the application, setting a language for the external apparatus by using a third language different from the first and second languages in a case where the external equipment does not correspond to the obtained second language, setting the first language for the external apparatus by transmitting the information of the first language to the external apparatus if it is determined that the external apparatus corresponds to the first language, the application further comprises transmitting a job for executing the function to the external apparatus based on a fact that setting for the function execution is completed because method can be practiced without these underlined conditions – language can be set without second language, external equipment may not correspond to first language or setting for function execution may not be complete. For compact prosecution, Examiner addressed the conditional limitations and the corresponding steps as described below.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. Claim 9 is the system claim and BRI includes the conditions (“external apparatus being able to be set to the first language corresponding to the obtained information” and “external apparatus being unable to be set to the first language corresponding to the obtained information”) and the corresponding steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0307268).
For claim 1, Miller et al teach the following limitations: A control method for an information processing apparatus (Fig 1 – Fig 4; users and print server 110) in which an application (application 202 shown in Fig 2) that is configured to operate on an operating system (OS) ([0040] application 202 may execute on computer, may communicate with printing system [0041] – application can provide the user interface; [0043] application may corresponds to multiple software program; thus the application is configured to operate on an operating system of the device; [0061][0062]) and has a function concerning a setting for function execution (Fig 3; step 308 – use application to obtain media selection for the print job; step 310 use application to format print data based on media attributes; thus application has the function of setting the print data for the print job for print execution) of external apparatus (external equipment is the printer as shown in Fig 1 and Fig 2), the method comprising: obtaining information concerning a first language set for the application (step 302 – step 308 in Fig 3; the media attributes are obtained, language settings are obtained as part of regional setting [0010][0011][0031][0037][0049][0058]- media selection is obtained that is based on language setting; media selection includes available media attributes that uniquely identifies the media to be used with print job; thus, obtaining regional setting information including language setting for the application to determine the media selection); and in accordance with the external apparatus being able to be set to the first language corresponding to the obtained information (step 308 and step 310 of Fig 3; [0031] – printer may then execute the print job on media corresponding to the media selection, media selection is based on language setting; thus the printer is able to be set to the language setting to print the print job corresponding to obtained media selection according to language setting), executing language setting for the external equipment ([0058][0059] – media selection is based on the language setting; media selection includes media attribute and based on the language setting; thus language setting is executed when data is generated based on the media attributes) by using the obtained information of the first language set for the application in setting for the function execution ([0049][0050] mentions how obtained information related to language setting affects media selection and generation of print data for the printer).
As explained above, BRI does not include the rest of the limitations “in accordance with external apparatus being unable to be set to the first language corresponding to the obtained information, applying information … for the external apparatus” as the limitations are conditional and recited in mutually exclusive format.
For claim 6, Miller teaches wherein the application further comprises transmitting a job for executing the function to the external equipment based on a fact that setting for the function execution is completed (step 310 and step 312 in Fig 3). Fig 2 and Fig 3 show the media selection is output from application 202 based on attributes and [0058] mentions media selection includes available media attributes that uniquely identifies the media to be used with print job. Then printer gets the print job in step 312.
For claim 7, wherein the external equipment is configured to output or display a result of processing of the job ([0006][0028] – output printed paper).
For claim 8, wherein the external equipment is a printing apparatus ([0028]).
For claim 9, Miller teaches A non-volatile computer-readable storage medium storing a program, the program configured to cause a computer to perform each step of the method according to claim 1 ([0025]-[0027]).
For claim 11, BRI does not include the limitations as the limitations are recited as conditional to “unable to set the first language”.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0307268) and further in view of Albright (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0326347).
For claim 2, Miller does not teach the limitation when no language is set for the application, obtaining information of a second language set for the OS and setting a language for the external equipment by using the obtained information of the second language set for the OS in setting for the function execution. Albright et al teach when no language is set for the application ([0034] “before receiving a selection of a language from the user”), obtaining information of a second language set for the OS (default language is selected based on factors such as location [0034]; provide language service to OS) and setting a language for the external equipment by using the obtained information of the second language set for the OS in setting for the function execution (various language is set for the display and keyboard as shown in Fig 6; display/keyboard is an external apparatus). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Miller and Albright. The use of default setting based on location (as taught in Albright [0034]) can be implemented in Miller so that Miller’s language setting allows a default settings in regional setting ([0011]). The default language provides a flexible option for the user because setting a language every time is time consuming operation.
For claim 3, Albright teaches setting a language for the external equipment by using a third language different from the first and second languages in a case where the external equipment does not correspond to the obtained second language (Fig 4 the various languages are shown; when the default language is not fully supported in language library 202, user can select other language).
For claim 4, herein the third language is English (506 in Fig 5, Albright).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0307268) and further in view of MCCANN (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0235122).
For claim 5, Miller does not explicitly mention determining whether the external equipment corresponds to the first language; and setting the first language for the external equipment by transmitting the information of the first language to the external equipment if it is determined that the external equipment corresponds to the first language. Mccann teaches determining whether printer corresponds to first language (firmware stores the supported languages [0033]; thus whether printer corresponds to a language can be determined from firmware), setting the first language for printer ([0033] setting language) transmitting the information of the first language to printer ([0023]-[0032] printer has the information of the selected language). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Miller and Mccann so that user can determine which languages are supported by the printer. That way printer can be set for a desired language when the multiple language setting exists.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0139860) and further in view of Kai (US Patent Application Publication 2007/0002355).
For claim 1, Nishida teaches the following limitations: A control method for an information processing apparatus (Fig 1, Fig 2 Fig 7) in which an application (web browser 31-1 shown in Fig 2; web browser is an application) (“browser language” shown in Fig 3, Fig 4A – 4D; [0008]) concerning a setting for function execution (print language setting as explained in Fig 4A- 4D, fig 6- Fig 7; browser language can be set as printer language Fig 6 [0045] ) of an external apparatus (printer 4 in Fig 1), the method comprising: obtaining information concerning a first language set for the application (Fig 3 – language setting of web browser); in accordance with the external apparatus being able to be set to the first language corresponding to the obtained information (Fig 6 step S1; [0045] – “if the language setting of the web browser is supported by offline printing…. configures language setting of the web browser as the print language for offline printing”; [0008][0037]; thus the offline printer can set the web browser language setting as the print language for the printer) , executing language setting for the external apparatus step S2 of Fig 6; [0045] – language setting is set for the printer) by using the obtained information of the first language set for the application in setting for the function execution (S1 in Fig 6; [0044] – “language setting of the web browser sent from the client terminal”; this information is used in setting print execution as shown in Fig 6), and in accordance with the external apparatus being unable to be set to the first language corresponding to the obtained information (the “NO” branch from S1 in Fig 6; S3 in Fig 6; [0045] - “if the language setting of the web browser is not supported by offline printing…. configures default language for offline printing”), applying information concerning a second language set (“default language mentioned in S3 in Fig 6; [0045]), to the language setting for the external apparatus (S3 in Fig 6 – set default language for to print language; thus the default language is set as the printer language).
Nishida mentions web browsers run on client terminal (Fig 2) and the terminal has its own OS system with language settings ([0020]-[0022] [0052]-[0053]). Nishida does not explicitly mention the limitations web browser application is configured to operate on the operating system and the second language set is for the operating system.
Kai teaches a system where the applications run on the OS and default language setting of printer is the OS supported language ([0051] OS loads the applications; default language for printer is the language corresponds to operating system [0078]; Kai).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the applications of Nishida on the operating system and providing the language correspond to OS as the default print language for the client terminal. As Nishida teaches two scenarios can exist where intended language differs from language settings of the OS ([0022]), it is likely that the majority printing would allow the intended language to be the OS language. Therefore setting the default language as the OS language setting would benefit the users.
For claim 2, Nishida teaches obtaining information of a second language set for the OS when no language is set for the application (conditional limitation, not required by BRI); and setting a language for the external equipment by using the obtained information of the second language set for the OS in setting for the function execution (Fig 6 S1 – S3; second language is set (i.e., default) using information that default language exists for printer).
For claims 3 and 4, the limitations are conditional (“in a case … second language”) and BRI does not include the limitations. However, Kai teaches setting one of multiple languages ([0065]) and Nishida teaches we browser supporting multiple languages ([0052]).Kai provides user interface to select language and determines the support for every language (Fig 2B and Fig 4 – step S1003; [0069][0078]). Therefore, user can set other language when a language is not supported.
For claim 5, Nishida teaches the following limitations determining whether the external equipment corresponds to the first language (Fig 6 Step S1; [0044]); and setting the first language for the external equipment by transmitting the information of the first language to the external equipment if it is determined that the external equipment corresponds to the first language (if Yes, then do S2 of Fig 6 to set the language in the printer).
For claim 6, Nishida teaches wherein the application further comprises transmitting a job for executing the function to the external equipment based on a fact that setting for the function execution is completed (Fig 6; print job in step S7 is based on the settings in step S1 – S3).
For claim 7, Nishida teaches wherein the external equipment is configured to output or display a result of processing of the job (step S7 in Fig 6).
For claim 8, Nishida teaches wherein the external equipment is a printing apparatus (Fig 1, Fig 2, Fig 6 and Fig 7 teach printer).
For claim 9, Nishida teaches the following limitations: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions ([0010]; [0057] – software coding, computer programmed according to the teaching) which when executed by one or more processors ([0057][0010]) of an information processing apparatus (Fig 1, Fig 2 Fig 7) that has an application (web browser 31-1 shown in Fig 2; web browser is an application) function (“browser language” shown in Fig 3, Fig 4A – 4D; [0008]) concerning a setting for function execution (print language setting as explained in Fig 4A- 4D, fig 6- Fig 7; browser language can be set as printer language Fig 6 [0045] ) of an external apparatus (printer 4 in Fig 1), cause the information processing apparatus to perform operations comprising: obtaining information concerning a first language set for the application (Fig 3 – language setting of web browser); in accordance with the external apparatus being able to be set to the first language corresponding to the obtained information (Fig 6 step S1; [0045] – “if the language setting of the web browser is supported by offline printing…. configures language setting of the web browser as the print language for offline printing”; [0008][0037]; thus the offline printer can set the web browser language setting as the print language for the printer) , executing language setting for the external apparatus step S2 of Fig 6; [0045] – language setting is set for the printer) by using the obtained information of the first language set for the application in setting for the function execution (S1 in Fig 6; [0044] – “language setting of the web browser sent from the client terminal”; this information is used in setting print execution as shown in Fig 6), and in accordance with the external apparatus being unable to be set to the first language corresponding to the obtained information (the “NO” branch from S1 in Fig 6; S3 in Fig 6; [0045] - “if the language setting of the web browser is not supported by offline printing…. configures default language for offline printing”), applying information concerning a second language set (“default language mentioned in S3 in Fig 6; [0045]), to the language setting for the external apparatus (S3 in Fig 6 – set default language for to print language; thus, the default language is set as the printer language).
Nishida mentions web browsers run on client terminal (Fig 2) and the terminal has its own OS system with language settings ([0020]-[0022] [0052]-[0053]). Nishida does not explicitly mention the limitations web browser application is configured to operate on the operating system and the second language set is for the operating system.
Kai teaches a system where the applications run on the OS and default language setting of printer is the OS supported language ([0051] OS loads the applications; default language for printer is the language corresponds to operating system [0078]; Kai).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the applications of Nishida on the operating system and providing the language correspond to OS as the default print language for the client terminal. As Nishida teaches two scenarios can exist where intended language differs from language settings of the OS ([0022]), it is likely that the majority printing would allow the intended language to be the OS language. Therefore, setting the default language as the OS language setting would benefit the users.
For claim 10, Nishida teaches wherein the language setting is a setting with an initial setup of the external apparatus (Fig 5; [0047] – each supported language configuration data is stored).
For claim 11, Kai teaches displaying a screen to confirm with a user whether the second language set for the OS of the information processing apparatus is to be applied to the language setting of the external apparatus ([0078 – language setting area of the setting window display Fig 2B displays default language as the language corresponds to OS; [0067] – allows the user to confirm), in a case where the external apparatus is unable to set the first language (displaying language occurs for both “able to set” and “unable to set” Fig 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that cited art fails to teach that the second language (which is set for the OS installed to the information processing apparatus) can be set to the external apparatus, even if the first language cannot be set to the external apparatus as mentioned in claim 1 and claim 9.
Examiner disagrees. As explained above, claim 1 recites a method claim and BRI does not include both mutually recited conditions and the corresponding steps. The cited art provides the teachings for “external apparatus able to be set to the first language” as explained above.
Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 is a system claim which requires both conditions as BRI. The newly cited art teaches both conditions for claim 9 as explained above.
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 FAHMIDA RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 AM - 7 PM. 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, Andrew Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/FAHMIDA RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights