DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the response filed on 4/21/2026.
Claims 1-23 are now pending in this application. Claims 1-10 and 14-16 have been amended. New claims 20-23 have been added. Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent claims.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIMOTO, US PGPUB 2009/0248849 Al (hereinafter as Ishimoto) in view of Yasuda, US PGPUB 2021/0240424 Al (hereinafter as Yasuda) and Toyoda et al., US PGPUB US 2015/0172364 Al (hereinafter as Toyoda).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ishimoto teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer-executable program of instructions for causing a computer to perform a method [see e.g. [0012] and [0035]] comprising:
acquiring a first icon image of a first printer based on identification information acquired from the first printer [note in [0065] the request and response by each device 12 including a device name, an IP address, and image icon data; note that device 12 can be a printer as shown in fig. 1; note from figs. 1 and 6 that the response request transmitting unit 66 is part of computer 10];
acquiring a second icon image of a second printer based on identification information for the second printer acquired from the second printer [again, note in [0065] the request and response by each device 12 including a device name, an IP address, and image icon data; note that device 12 can be a printer as shown in fig. 1; note from figs. 1 and 6 that the response request transmitting unit 66 is part of computer 10]; and
controlling a display unit to display the first icon image and the second icon image [note from [0072] the display of the icon images on display device 62 of computer 10].
Ishimoto does not explicitly teach that the first printer being a printer for local printing while the identification information for the second printer is acquired from a server, the second printer being a printer for cloud printing.
Neither does it teach generating, in a case where the acquiring of the second icon image has failed, the second icon image by combining an icon image for local printing with an image indicating use of a cloud print service.
Yasuda teaches the first printer being a printer for local printing [note in [0081] the display of print settings and transmitting them to the printer identified including local printers; note also the case of a local printer (a first printer) where there is no need to use the server system for communication regarding performing printing as also indicated in [0058]].
Yasuda further teaches acquiring identification information for a printer from a server, the printer being a printer for cloud printing (denoted hereinafter as a second printer with no loss of generality) [note in [0072] the acquisition of printer information for any one of network printers from cloud print service; see also [0052]] as opposed to other acquisitions for local printers that do not need communication with the server (from which one of them is denoted hereinafter as a first printer) [see [0071]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Ishimoto and Yasuda before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Yasuda’s teachings of 1) a first printer being a printer for local printing and 2) the acquisition of identification information for a printer from a server, the printer being a printer for cloud printing, to the instructions taught by Ishimoto. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable aggregating printer information corresponding to devices that are connected through a cloud/network administered by a cloud service as well as those locally connected, as suggested by Yasuda [see e.g. [0072] and [0100]].
The previously combined art, still, does not explicitly teach generating, in a case where the acquiring of the second icon image has failed, the second icon image by combining an icon image for local printing with an image indicating use of a cloud print service.
Toyoda teaches generating, in a case where the acquiring of an icon image has failed, the icon image by combining a certain icon image with an original image indicating of a characteristic of what the icon image represents [note in [0154] the generation of an alternative image in case acquisition of an original image failed; note from [0041] the generation of an image that is a representative of content related to an image or indicative of the original image; see also [0105], [0009], and [0018]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Toyoda, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply Toyoda’s generation of an alternative icon image for a case in which specific icon image acquisition failed to the case of the icon image of the printer for cloud printing taught by Ishimoto. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable an efficient display even in cases in which the failure to read a thumbnail image occurs due to network issues such as latency, etc., as suggested by Toyoda [see e.g. [0105] and [0020]].
Independent claims 8 and 14 are rejected analogous to the rejection of independent claim 1 above.
Regarding independent claim 8, Ishimoto also teaches an apparatus [see e.g. computer 10 shown in figs. 5 and 6] comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory having instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform operations [see e.g. [0047]] as those of claim 1 [See the rejection of claim 1 above; Examiner further notes that the acquisition unit, generation unit, and control unit are clearly software modules since there are operations performed by executing instructions].
Regarding independent claim 14, Ishimoto also teaches a method [see e.g. [0087] and fig. 11] comprising operations as those of claim 1 [See the rejection of claim 1 above].
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 15, the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 14 are respectively incorporated. Yasuda further teaches controlling a display unit to display a print setting screen for setting print settings to be transmitted to the first printer without interposing the cloud print service [note in [0081] the display of print settings and transmitting them to the printer identified; note the case of a local printer (a first printer) where there is no need to use the server system for communication regarding performing printing as per [0058]].
Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the combined art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Yasuda’s teaching to Ishimoto’s display unit and framework. See the rejection of claim 1 for motivations to combine.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 16, the rejection of claims 2, 9, and 15 are respectively incorporated. Yasuda further teaches controlling the display unit to display a print setting screen for setting print settings to be transmitted to the second printer via the cloud print service [note in [0081] the display of print settings and transmitting them to the print queue of the printer identified on the cloud print service; note the case of a printer registered in the cloud print service (a second printer)]. See the rejection of claim 1 for motivations to combine.
Claims 4-7, 11-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimoto in view of Yasuda and Toyoda, as applied to claim 2 (for claims 4-7), claim 9 (for claims 11-13), and claim 15 (for claims 17-19) above, and further in view of Kanno, US Patents No. 11,275,539 B2 (hereinafter as Kanno).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17, the rejection of claims 2, 9, and 15 are respectively incorporated. The previously combined art does not explicitly teach that the print settings are provided to an operating system of an/the apparatus.
Kanno teaches providing print settings to an operating system of an apparatus [note in col. 6, lines 25-27 that the OS received print data instructions; note in col. 6, line 37 that print data can be related to a print setting].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Kanno before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kanno’s teaching of providing print settings to an operating system of an apparatus to the handling of the print setting screen taught by Yasuda. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable handling print instructions through any computing device.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, the rejection of claims 4, 11, and 17 are respectively incorporated. Kanno further teaches that the print settings are used to generate print data by a printer driver provided by a vendor of the operating system [note in col. 6, lines 30-33 the conversion of data output by an application (which can be print settings) into data having a format that can be interpreted by the printer device and in col. 6, lines 37-42 that the driver can be a general-purpose printer driver conforming to standards defined by a certain operating system such as Mopria; Examiner notes the example of OS-specific drivers in [0002] of the specification of the instant application].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Kanno before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kanno’s teaching of using print settings to generate print data by a printer driver provided by a vendor of the operating system to the handling of the print setting screen taught by Yasuda. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable using a generic driver to convert print instructions to a format that can be interpreted by the printer device, as suggested by Kanno [col. 6, lines 30-33 and lines 37-42].
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, the rejection of claims 5, 12, and 18 are respectively incorporated. Kanno further teaches that the print data includes print settings defined by a predetermined protocol, and is transmitted to the first printer in conformance with the predetermined protocol [note in col. 3, lines 31-34 the use of the predetermined Internet Printing protocol to control the printer to perform printing; note in col. 14, lines 58-49 that the print data is in a format defined by the predetermined protocol; again, note in col. 6, line 37 that print data can be related to a print setting].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Kanno before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify that the print data includes print settings defined by a predetermined protocol, and is transmitted to the first printer in conformance with the predetermined protocol, as per the teachings of Kanno. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable utilizing additional standardized protocols to correctly communicate specific configurations of vendor-specific printer devices and associated settings, thereby enabling full use of printer capabilities, as suggested by Kanno [see col. 16, lines 53-56].
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Kanno further teaches that the predetermined protocol is Internet Printing Protocol [again note in col. 3, lines 31-34 the use of the predetermined Internet Printing protocol to control the printer to perform printing; note in col. 14, lines 58-49 that the print data is in a format defined by the predetermined protocol]. Refer to the rejection of claim 6 for motivations to combine.
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimoto in view of Yasuda and Toyoda, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, respectively, and further in view of Nishio, US PGPUB 20180314475 A1 (hereinafter as Nishio).
Regarding claims 20 and 22, the rejection of claims 1 and 14 are respectively incorporated. The previously combined art does not explicitly teach referring to an extension setup information file associated with a selected print queue to determine whether a device icon property is stored in a queue property storage region of the operating system.
Nishio teaches referring to an extension setup information file associated with a selected print queue to determine whether a device property is stored in a queue property storage region of the operating system [note from figs. 7A-7B as well as [0114] and [0122] the storage area QueuePropertyBag 420 associated with a certain logical printer or printer icon of a printer driver; note the use of the storage area for storing relevant information associated with a particular printer device as indicated in [0005]-[0006] and as indicated also in the abstract; see also [0149]-[0150]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Nishio before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Nishio’s teaching of referring to an extension setup information file associated with a selected print queue to determine whether a device icon property is stored in a queue property storage region of the operating system to the framework taught by the combined art. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to facilitate a scheme of processing information storable from a printer driver and usable by an information processing apparatus, as suggested by Nishio [again, see [0005]-[0006] as well as [0149]-[0150] and [0114].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimoto in view of Yasuda, Toyoda, and Nishio, as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Jiang et al., US PGPUB 2012/0260202 Al (hereinafter as Jiang).
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 20 is fully incorporated. The previously combined art does not explicitly teach acquiring a default icon image provided by an operating system via an application programming interface.
Jiang teaches acquiring a default icon image provided by an operating system via an application programming interface [note in [0026] the use of an AI of an OS to acquire a default icon image on a default screen; see also [0025] indicating default displays associated with an application; see also figs. 3-5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Jiang before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Jiang’s teaching of acquiring a default icon image provided by an operating system via an application programming interface to the handling of the icon acquisition taught by the combined teachings, as indicated above. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable customizing default settings associated with applications by exchanging entry information for apps through APIs conveying specifics of an application in relation to the interface being used, as suggested by Jiang [again, see [0025]- [0026].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimoto in view of Yasuda and Toyoda, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Jiang.
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 14 is fully incorporated. The previously combined art does not explicitly teach acquiring a default icon image provided by an operating system via an application programming interface.
Jiang teaches acquiring a default icon image provided by an operating system via an application programming interface [note in [0026] the use of an AI of an OS to acquire a default icon image on a default screen; see also [0025] indicating default displays associated with an application; see also figs. 3-5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Jiang before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Jiang’s teaching of acquiring a default icon image provided by an operating system via an application programming interface to the handling of the icon acquisition taught by the combined teachings, as indicated above. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable customizing default settings associated with applications by exchanging entry information for apps through APIs conveying specifics of an application in relation to the interface being used, as suggested by Jiang [again, see [0025]-[0026]].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specification in view of the previously presented informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have thus been respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims in view of the previously presented claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have thus been respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims in view of the previously presented rejections under 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have thus been respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s prior art arguments with respect to the amended independent claims 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes from the cited art:
Hower, Jr. et al., US Patent No. 5,467,434, which teaches configuration files related to print queues [see e.g. fig. 2 and the corresponding description].
Yamazaki, US PGPUB 20190227755 A1, which teaches the display of icon images for several printers and other peripherals [see e.g. fig. 5].
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 MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, EST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights