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 .
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.
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 communicator” in claim 1, “a user interface” in claim 4, “a user interface” in claim 9.
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.
“a communicator” in claim 1 is read as the item 305 shown in Fig.3 which can be a LAN, a wireless network, a wide-area network (paragraph 29 of the filed original specification), “a user interface” in claim 4 is read as the display unit 307 shown in Fig.3, and “a user interface” in claim 9 is read as the display unit 307 shown in Fig.3.
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 § 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 ?? are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda’705 (US 2022/0066705), and further in view of Mitani’140 (US 2006/0072140).
With respect to claim 1, Kuroda’705 teaches an information processing apparatus (Fig.1, item 103) connectable to a server is configured to provide a cloud printing service (Fig.1, item 102), comprising:
a communicator (Fig.2, item 140) that communicates with a connected external apparatus [as shown in Fig.2, the information processing apparatus connects to the printer 101 via either path 1 or path 2];
at least one memory (Fig.2, items 112, 113 and 114) which stores at least one program; and
at least one processor (Fig.2, item 111);
wherein the at least one processor reads the at least one program from the at least one memory and executes it to perform [the processor (Fig.2, item 111) is considered to perform desired functions according the programs stored in the memory (Fig.2, items 112, 113 and 114)].
Kuroda’705 does not teach specifying an image forming apparatus that satisfies a predetermined condition 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; setting configuration information of a printer driver of the specified image forming apparatus as configuration information of the cloud printer driver.
Mitani’140 teaches specifying an image forming apparatus that satisfies a predetermined condition from among a plurality of image forming apparatuses that have already been installed on the information processing apparatus when installing a printer driver that generates a print job to be transmitted (Fig.4);
setting configuration information of a printer driver of the specified image forming apparatus as configuration information of the printer driver (Fig.4).
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 Kuroda’705 according to the teaching of Mitani’140 to configure setting for a cloud printer driver printer when the said cloud printer driver is being installed according to the setting of an existed printer driver associated with a printer which is also associated with the said cloud printer driver because this will allow the cloud printer driver for a printer to be installed and configured more effectively.
With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, Kuroda’705 teaches wherein the predetermined condition is that the printer driver has the same driver module as the cloud printer driver [the driver configuration of the output destination printer is being updated according if a local printer is found (paragraphs 95 and 96). Therefore, a local printer driver and a cloud printer driver are considered being disclosed to share with same driver module].
With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 2, 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).
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 1, Kuroda’705 teaches a user interface that confirms with a user that the configuration information of the printer driver of the specified image forming apparatus is to be set as the configuration information of the cloud printer driver (Fig.5, step S522),
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 (Fig.5, step S522).
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 1, Kuroda’705 teaches wherein in a case where there are a plurality of image forming apparatuses that satisfy the predetermined condition, 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 (Fig. 5, step S503), and
setting the configuration information of the printer driver of the specified image forming apparatus as the configuration information of the cloud printer driver (Fig.5, step S522).
With respect to claim 6, which further limits claim 5, Kuroda’705 teaches wherein the predetermined condition includes satisfaction of at least one of a condition in which the printer driver has the same driver module as the cloud printer driver [the driver configuration of the output destination printer is being updated according if a local printer is found (paragraphs 95 and 96). Therefore, a local printer driver and a cloud printer driver are considered being disclosed to share with same driver module]and a condition in which a maker of the printer driver is the same as a maker of the cloud printer driver.
With respect to claim 10, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Kuroda’705 and Mitani’140 does not teach 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.
Since Kuroda’705 has suggested that information processing apparatus instructs printer to perform printing via the cloud platform (Fig.1) and Mitani’140 teaches multiple printers are provided to the client PC to perform printing (Fig.1), 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 include multiple printers in the system (Fig.1 in Kuroda’705) such that the information processing apparatus (Fig.1, item 103 in Kuroda’705) connects to them and to transmit print jobs to them either directly or through the cloud platform (Fig.1, item 102 in Kuroda’705) (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) because this will allow the print jobs to be printed by multiple printers 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 Kuroda’705 and Mitani’140 to include multiple printers in the system (Fig.1 in Kuroda’705) such that the information processing apparatus (Fig.1, item 103 in Kuroda’705) connects to them and to transmit print jobs to them either directly or through the cloud platform (Fig.1, item 102 in Kuroda’705) (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) because this will allow the print jobs to be printed by multiple printers more effectively.
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 10, it is a method claim. It is analyzed and rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
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.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 5 because the prior art of record does not teach “a user interface that confirms with a user that the configuration information of the printer driver of the specified image forming apparatus is to be set as the configuration information of the cloud printer driver, wherein the user interface further displays a list of the plurality of image forming apparatuses in association with the priorities, and 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 included in the list, 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.” Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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