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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/4/04/2024is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending in this application.
Oath/Declaration
The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Drawings
6. The receipt of Drawings is acknowledged.
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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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:
“an obtaining unit” in claim 13.
10. 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.
11. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “an obtaining unit” in claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s Specification describes in Para [0092]-[0093], In step S705, the capability information obtaining unit 211 determines the device type of the printing device 102 when the capability information obtaining unit 211 stores the basic capability information about printing device 102. The capability information obtaining unit 211 determines whether information indicating the device type is stored in the shared information 210. If the information indicating the device type is stored, the processing proceeds to step S706. On the other hand, if the information indicating the device type is not stored in the shared information 210, the capability information obtaining unit 211 executes processing illustrated in Fig. 15, However, the following processing can be executed through software programming and no specific hardware is described which links the processing of the capability information stored by the capability information obtaining unit 211. Thus, there is insufficient structure or hardware described in Applicant’s Spec to perform the following functions outlined by the capability information obtaining unit 211. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, based on their respective claim dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application without significantly more.
The claims 1, 7 and 13 recite(s) the following limitations respectively, which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more:
“obtaining first attribute information and second attribute information from a printing device; storing, in a storage unit, first information based on the obtained first attribute information and second information based on the obtained second attribute information” (abstract ideas as mental processes as a human mind is capable of obtaining first and second attribute information from a printing device (piece of printed paper) and storing the obtained information (human using a pen and paper to collect data).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. Claims 1, 7 and 13 recites the additional elements “controlling the print setting screen to be displayed based on the first information and the second information stored in the storage unit, wherein in a case where the second attribute information is not successfully obtained, information stored in the application in advance is stored as the second information in the storage unit.”, which while not necessarily being abstract ides, the following elements are insignificant extra solution activity since they merely display stored information, See MPEP 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity; Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these elements amount to receiving and outputting data in a computer based system and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 7 and 13 are directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
The claims 2, 8 and 14 recite(s) the following limitations respectively, which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more:
“wherein the first attribute information is information about a setting item settable for printing in the printing device” (abstract ideas as mental processes as a human mind is capable of recognizing first attribute information as setting a settable item for printing.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these elements amount to receiving and outputting data in a computer based system and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Therefore, independent claims 2, 8 and 14 are directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
The claims 3, 9 and 15 recite(s) the following limitations respectively, which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more:
“wherein the second attribute information is information indicating a combination of setting values settable for printing using the printing device” (abstract ideas as mental processes as a human mind is capable of recognizing second attribute information is information indicating a combination of setting values settable for printing.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these elements amount to receiving and outputting data in a computer based system and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Therefore, independent claims 3, 9 and 15 are directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
The claims 4, 10 and 16 recite(s) the following limitations respectively, which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more:
“determining whether the first information is stored in the storage unit” (abstract ideas as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity is capable of determining whether the first information is stored).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. Claims 4, 10 and 16 recites the additional elements “wherein, if it is determined that the first information is not stored, the first attribute information is obtained.”, the following elements are mere instruction to apply an exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f), Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these elements amount to receiving and outputting data in a computer based system and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Therefore, independent claims 4, 10 and 16 are directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
The claims 5, 11 and 17 recite(s) the following limitations respectively, which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more:
“determining whether the second information is stored in the storage unit” (abstract ideas as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity is capable of determining whether the second information is stored).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. Claims 5, 11 and 17 recites the additional elements “wherein, if it is determined that the second information is not stored, the second attribute information is obtained.”, the following elements are mere instruction to apply an exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f), Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these elements amount to receiving and outputting data in a computer based system and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Therefore, independent claims 5, 11 and 17 are directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
The claims 6, 12 and 18 recite(s) the following limitations respectively, which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more:
“wherein the second information is information indicating a combination of setting values that are prohibited from being set to one piece of print data” (abstract ideas as mental processes as a human mind is capable of indicating a combination of setting values that are prohibited from being set to one piece of print data (piece of printed paper).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these elements amount to receiving and outputting data in a computer based system and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Therefore, independent claims 6, 12, and 18 are directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
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 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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US PAT. No. 11,520,533 B2).
Referring to Claim 1, Suzuki teaches a non-transitory storage medium (See Suzuki, Fig. 2, Client Computer 100 with embedded Storage 105) storing an application (See Suzuki, Device App 1052) configured to display a print setting screen (See Suzuki, Col. lines 64-67 and Col. 5 lines 1-6, the storage 105 include a nonvolatile flash memory and a hard disk drive (HDD) with a larger capacity than that of the RAM 1022. The storage 105 stores an operating system (OS) 1053 for controlling the entire computer 100 and programs of various applications 1051 that operate on the OS 1053. The storage 105 also stores a common printer driver 1054 that generates a print job conforming to a predetermined print protocol, such as the IPP, and programs of device apps 1052a to 1052b that work with the common printer driver 1054), the application (See Suzuki, Device App 1052, Col. 10 lines 4-48, the device app 1052 generates an extension setting screen (user interface) containing setting items that are not defined in the IPP from the capability information indicating extended settings, obtained from the printer 200, and displays the screen on the monitor 110.), when executed, causing an information processing apparatus to implement a control method (See Suzuki, Fig. 9, Col. 9 lines 51-52, FIG. 9 illustrates an example of the print setting screen that the device app 1052a displays on the monitor 110. Reference sign 901 denotes an example of the standard print settings. Reference sign 902 denotes an example of the extended print settings based the device capability information. An OK key 903 is a key for starting printing that reflects the print settings), the control method comprising:
obtaining first attribute information and second attribute information from a printing device (See Suzuki, Col. 2 lines 42-52, The printer driver includes first acquisition means configured to obtain first attribute information related to printing from the printer using the predetermined print protocol and…third acquisition means configured to obtain second attribute information related to printing from the printer);
storing, in a storage unit (See Suzuki, Col. Fig. 2, the storage 105), first information based on the obtained first attribute information and second information based on the obtained second attribute information (See Suzuki, Col. 8 lines 5-10, The obtained attribute information is transferred to the standard-printing setting unit 308. The standard-printing setting unit 308 generates a definition file on the basis of the attribute information obtained using the IPP and stores the definition file in the storage 105.);
controlling the print setting screen to be displayed based on the first information and the second information stored in the storage unit (See Suzuki, Claim 6, wherein the print setting screen is provided based on both of the obtained first attribute information and the second attribute information stored in storage 105),
wherein in a case where the second attribute information is not successfully obtained (See Suzuki, Col. 12 lines 20-21, if the capability information on the selected printer is not stored, the processing proceeds to S610.), information stored in the application in advance is stored as the second information in the storage unit (See Suzuki, Col. 12 lines 30-33, The received capability information and the information in which the identifier of the selected printer is associated are stored in a common storage area that is accessible from the device app 1052.).
Referring to Claim 2, Suzuki teaches the non-transitory storage medium according to claim 1 (See Suzuki, Fig. 2, Client Computer 100 with embedded Storage 105), wherein the first attribute information is information about a setting item settable for printing in the printing device (See Suzuki, Col. 7 lines 43-48, generated on the basis of first attribute information obtained from the printer at searching for an IPP printer, the standard-printing-function definition file is a definition file indicating the capabilities of the printer.).
Referring to Claim 3, Suzuki teaches the non-transitory storage medium according to claim 2 (See Suzuki, Fig. 2, Client Computer 100 with embedded Storage 105), wherein the second attribute information is information indicating a combination of setting values settable for printing using the printing device (See Suzuki, Fig. 4A, File 400 (Second Attribute Information), Col. 8 lines 18-30, File 400 lists combinations of an available print setting item and a set value based on second attribute information conforming to the IPP and print setting items for post-processing .).
Referring to Claim 4, Suzuki teaches the non-transitory storage medium according to claim 1 (See Suzuki, Fig. 2, Client Computer 100 with embedded Storage 105),
wherein the control method further includes determining whether the first information is stored in the storage unit (See Suzuki, Col. 12 lines 15-18, In step S609, the printing startup app unit 10521 of the device app 1052 determines whether the capability information on the selected printer is stored in the storage 105.), and
wherein, if it is determined that the first information is not stored (See Suzuki, Col. 12 lines 20-21, if the capability information on the selected printer is not stored, the processing proceeds to S610), the first attribute information is obtained (See Suzuki, Col. 12 lines 22-30, In step S610, the device-app communication unit 10524 inquires capability information from the selected printer 200. The device-app communication unit 10524 of the device app 1052 requests the capability information from the selected printer 200 using the specific communication method and the specific control command. In step S611, the device-app communication unit 10524 receives device capability information in response to the request transmitted in S610.).
Referring to Claim 5, Suzuki teaches the non-transitory storage medium according to claim 4 (See Suzuki, Fig. 2, Client Computer 100 with embedded Storage 105),
wherein the control method further includes determining whether the second information is stored in the storage unit (See Suzuki, Col. 12 lines 15-18, In step S609, the printing startup app unit 10521 of the device app 1052 determines whether the capability information on the selected printer is stored in the storage 105.), and
wherein, if it is determined that the second information is not stored (See Suzuki, Col. 12 lines 20-21, if the capability information on the selected printer is not stored, the processing proceeds to S610), the second attribute information is obtained (See Suzuki, Col. 12 lines 22-30, In step S610, the device-app communication unit 10524 inquires capability information from the selected printer 200. The device-app communication unit 10524 of the device app 1052 requests the capability information from the selected printer 200 using the specific communication method and the specific control command. In step S611, the device-app communication unit 10524 receives device capability information in response to the request transmitted in S610.).
Referring to Claim 6, Suzuki teaches the non-transitory storage medium according to claim 1 (See Suzuki, Fig. 2, Client Computer 100 with embedded Storage 105), wherein the second information is information indicating a combination of setting values that are prohibited from being set to one piece of print data (See Suzuki, Col. 7 lines 62-67 and Col. 8 lines 1-5, In response to the request, attribute information on the printer 200 is obtained. Examples of the printer capability information obtained by the printer-attribute requesting operation include standard print-setting capability information, for example, whether “two-sided” and “color printing” are available. The capabilities (attributes) obtained by the printer-attribute requesting operation is support information on attributes prescribed in the IPP. Accordingly, vendor-specific functional information (for example, a needleless function and a box printing function) cannot be obtained by the printer-attribute requesting operation of the IPP.).
Referring to Claim 7, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable herein. “A non-transitory storage medium” in claim 1 executes all of the steps of “A control method” in claim 7. Thus, “A control method” in claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Referring to Claim 8, arguments analogous to claim 2 are applicable herein. “The non-transitory storage medium” in claim 2 executes all of the steps of “The control method” in claim 8. Thus, “The control method” in claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 2.
Referring to Claim 9, arguments analogous to claim 3 are applicable herein. “The non-transitory storage medium” in claim 3 executes all of the steps of “The control method” in claim 9. Thus, “The control method” in claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
Referring to Claim 10, arguments analogous to claim 4 are applicable herein. “The non-transitory storage medium” in claim 4 executes all of the steps of “The control method” in claim 10. Thus, “The control method” in claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
Referring to Claim 11, arguments analogous to claim 5 are applicable herein. “The non-transitory storage medium” in claim 5 executes all of the steps of “The control method” in claim 11. Thus, “The control method” in claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 5.
Referring to Claim 12, arguments analogous to claim 6 are applicable herein. “The non-transitory storage medium” in claim 6 executes all of the steps of “The control method” in claim 12. Thus, “The control method” in claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 6.
Referring to Claim 13, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable herein. “A non-transitory storage medium” in claim 1 executes all of the functions of “An information processing apparatus” in claim 13. Thus, “An information processing apparatus” in claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Referring to Claim 14, arguments analogous to claim 2 are applicable herein. “The non-transitory storage medium” in claim 2 executes all of the functions of “The information processing apparatus” in claim 14. Thus, “The information processing apparatus” in claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 2.
Referring to Claim 15, arguments analogous to claim 3 are applicable herein. “The non-transitory storage medium” in claim 3 executes all of the functions of “The information processing apparatus” in claim 15. Thus, “The information processing apparatus” in claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
Referring to Claim 16, arguments analogous to claim 4 are applicable herein. “The non-transitory storage medium” in claim 4 executes all of the functions of “The information processing apparatus” in claim 16. Thus, “The information processing apparatus” in claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
Referring to Claim 17, arguments analogous to claim 5 are applicable herein. “The non-transitory storage medium” in claim 5 executes all of the functions of “The information processing apparatus” in claim 17. Thus, “The information processing apparatus” in claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 5.
Referring to Claim 18, arguments analogous to claim 6 are applicable herein. “The non-transitory storage medium” in claim 6 executes all of the functions of “The information processing apparatus” in claim 18. Thus, “The information processing apparatus” in claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 6.
Cited Art
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Inoue et al. (US PAT. No. 10,936,263 B2) discloses A mobile terminal (a communication terminal) searches for image forming apparatuses that can use a predetermined service (a print service), and displays, as search results, one or more image forming apparatuses that responded to the search. Furthermore, in the search results, the mobile terminal identifiably displays, in accordance with the response from each image forming apparatus, image forming apparatuses that can use the predetermined service, and image forming apparatuses that cannot use the predetermined service because a setting for the service is set to disabled.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRYL V DOTTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached on 571-270-5254. 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.
/DARRYL V DOTTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
/DARRYL V DOTTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683