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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 26, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are not in condition for allowance because all of the limitations from the claim 9 have not being incorporated into independent claims 1, 11, and 12 and some of the original limitations in Claims 1, 11, and 12 have been removed.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims received on May 26, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment of claims 1, 3-6, 11 and 12 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki’477 (US 2013/0100477), and further in view of Selvaraj’712 (US 2008/0180712).
With respect to claim 1, Ozaki’477 teaches an information processing apparatus (Fig.1, item 103) connectable to a server (Fig.1, item 101) configured to provide a cloud printing service, comprising:
at least one memory (Fig.2, item 212 and 213) which stores at least one program; and
at least one processor (Fig.2, item 211), wherein the at least one processor reads the at least one program from the at least one memory and executes the at least one program to perform [the CPU (Fig.2, item 211) is considered to the read the instruction of programs from the memory (Fig.2, items 212 and 213)]:
displaying a user interface screen on which a user can confirm that configuration information of a printer driver of a specified image forming apparatus is to be set as the configuration information of a cloud printer driver [as shown in Fig.7B, when the output to cloud service 702 is being enable and a cloud service name is being selected from the cloud service names list 703 by a user, the said user is considered to confirm the configuration information of a printer driver of a specified image forming apparatus which is to be set as the configuration information of a cloud printer driver]; and
Ozaki’477 does not teach setting, as the configuration information of the cloud printer driver, configuration information of a printer driver of an image forming apparatus that has been assigned a highest priority or an image forming apparatus that has been selected by a user from a list of a plurality of the image forming apparatuses in association with the priorities from among a plurality of image forming apparatuses that have already been installed on the information processing apparatus when installing a cloud printer driver that generates a print job to be transmitted to the server.
Selvaraj’712 teaches universal print driver automatically selecting the "best fit" printing device, or by universal print driver presenting the list of available printing devices, along with the "best fit" printing device, and the user selecting the particular printing device for printing a job (paraph 73).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ozaki’477 according to the teaching of Selvaraj’712 to provide a printer list having the printers arranged in desired ranking on a printer driver or to have the said printer driver to select a best fit printer to perform cloud printing when the said printer driver is provided with cloud service function for outputting print jobs (setting, as the configuration information of the cloud printer driver, configuration information of a printer driver of an image forming apparatus that has been assigned a highest priority or an image forming apparatus that has been selected by a user from a list of a plurality of the image forming apparatuses in association with the priorities from among a plurality of image forming apparatuses that have already been installed on the information processing apparatus when installing a cloud printer driver that generates a print job to be transmitted to the server) because this will allow the print job to be printed more effectively.
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 1, Ozaki’477 teaches wherein upon accepting a user's confirmation via the user interface, the processor executes the at least one program to perform setting the configuration information of the printer driver of the specified image forming apparatus as the configuration information of the cloud printer driver [as shown in Fig.7B, when the output to cloud service 702 is being enable and a cloud service name is being selected from the cloud service names list 703 by a user, the said user is considered to confirm the configuration information of a printer driver of a specified image forming apparatus which is to be set as the configuration information of a cloud printer driver].
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Ozaki’477 and Selvaraj’712 does not teach the processor executes the at least one program to perform regarding an image forming apparatus that has been assigned a highest priority among the plurality of image forming apparatuses or an image forming apparatus that has been selected by a user from among the plurality of image forming apparatuses, as the specified image forming apparatus, and setting the configuration information of the printer driver of the specified image forming apparatus as the configuration information of the cloud printer driver.
Since Ozaki’477 teaches when the output to cloud service (Fig.7B, item 702) is being enable and a cloud service name is being selected from the cloud service names list 703 by a user, the said user is considered to confirm the configuration information of a printer driver of a specified image forming apparatus which is to be set as the configuration information of a cloud printer driver and Selvaraj’712 teaches universal print driver automatically selecting the "best fit" printing device, or by universal print driver presenting the list of available printing devices, along with the "best fit" printing device, and the user selecting the particular printing device for printing a job (paraph 73), therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to provide a printer list having the printers arranged in desired ranking on a printer driver or to have the said printer driver to select a best fit printer to perform cloud printing when the said printer driver is provided with cloud service function for outputting print jobs
(the processor executes the at least one program to perform regarding an image forming apparatus that has been assigned a highest priority among the plurality of image forming apparatuses or an image forming apparatus that has been selected by a user from among the plurality of image forming apparatuses, as the specified image forming apparatus, and setting the configuration information of the printer driver of the specified image forming apparatus as the configuration information of the cloud printer driver) because this will allow the print job to be printed more effectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ozaki’477 and Selvaraj’712 to provide a printer list having the printers arranged in desired ranking on a printer driver or to have the said printer driver to select a best fit printer to perform cloud printing when the said printer driver is provided with cloud service function for outputting print jobs (the processor executes the at least one program to perform regarding an image forming apparatus that has been assigned a highest priority among the plurality of image forming apparatuses or an image forming apparatus that has been selected by a user from among the plurality of image forming apparatuses, as the specified image forming apparatus, and setting the configuration information of the printer driver of the specified image forming apparatus as the configuration information of the cloud printer driver) because this will allow the print job to be printed more effectively.
With respect to claim 6, which further limits claim 5, Ozaki’477 teaches the printer driver of the specified image forming apparatus has the same driver module as the cloud printer driver [when the output to cloud service (Fig.7B, item 702) is being enable and a cloud service name is then being selected from the cloud service names list 703 by a user, the printer driver is function as a cloud printer driver. Therefore, when the output to cloud service (Fig.7B, item 702) is not being enable, the printer driver is function as a local printer driver. Therefore, a local printer driver and a cloud printer driver are considered being disclosed to share with same driver module] and/or a maker of the printer driver of the specified image forming apparatus is the same as a maker of the cloud printer driver.
With respect to claim 10, which further limits claim 1, Ozaki’477 teaches wherein the image forming apparatuses that have already been installed on the information processing apparatus are image forming apparatuses that obtain a print job from the cloud printing service and print the print job [as shown in Fig.1, the image output device 102 is either obtains the print job from the computer apparatus 103 or from the cloud service server apparatus 101 (paragraph 25). Therefore, the image output device 102 installed the computer apparatus 103 is considered to obtain a print job from the cloud service server apparatus 101 and print the print job.]
With respect to claim 11, it is a claim regarding to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing thereon a computer program. It is analyzed and rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 12, it is a method claim. It is analyzed and rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki’477 (US 2013/0100477), Selvaraj’712 (US 2008/0180712) and further in view of
Kuroda’705 (US 2022/0066705).
With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 1, Ozaki’477 does not teach wherein the processor executes the at least one program to perform searching for image forming apparatuses that are connected to the information processing apparatus as the image forming apparatuses that have already been installed on the information processing apparatus, and specifying the image forming apparatus with the printer driver that has the same driver module as the cloud printer driver from among discovered image forming apparatuses.
Kuroda’705 teaches wherein the processor executes the at least one program to perform searching for image forming apparatuses that are connected to the information processing apparatus as the image forming apparatuses that have already been installed on the information processing apparatus (Fig.5, steps S501 and S504), and
specifying the image forming apparatus with the printer driver that has the same driver module as the cloud printer driver from among discovered image forming apparatuses (Fig.5, step S504, S505, S506, S507 and S509).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ozaki’477 and Selvaraj’712 according to the teaching of Kuroda’705 to search the other printers associated with the installed printer driver because this will allow the print job to be distributed to different printers more effectively.
Kuroda’705 teaches the printer driver of the specified image forming apparatus has the same driver module as the cloud printer driver and/or a maker of the printer driver of the specified image forming apparatus is the same as a maker of the cloud printer driver.
Claim objection
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 5 because the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the plurality of image forming apparatuses descend in the following order in terms of the priorities assigned : an image forming apparatus with the printer driver which has the same driver module as the cloud printer driver, and whose maker is the same as a maker of the cloud printer driver; an image forming apparatus with the printer driver which has the same driver module as the cloud printer driver, and whose maker is not the same as the maker of the cloud printer driver; and an image forming apparatus with the printer driver which does not have the same driver module as the cloud printer driver, and whose maker is the same as the maker of the cloud printer driver.” Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a objected base claim 7 because the prior art of record does not teach “wherein in a case where there are a plurality of image forming apparatuses that are ranked the same in terms of the order in which the priorities are assigned, the processor executes the at least one program to perform setting a higher priority for an image forming apparatus that has been set as a default printer by the information processing apparatus than for an image forming apparatus that has not been set as the default printer.” Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (571) 272-7490. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights