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 .
2. Claims 1-24 are pending in this application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on applications JP 2021-199141 & JP 2022-081499 filed on 12/08/2021 &05/18/2022 respectively under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d).
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in priorApplication No. 18/062,237, filed on 12/06/2022, and name an inventor or inventors named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or division. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78.
Drawings
4. The drawing has been filed on 12/06/2022 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement filed on 03/25/2026 is in compliance with the provision of the 37 CFR 1.97 and therefore has been considered.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
7. Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,272 B2.
It is clear that all the elements of an instant application independent claims 1, 18, 21-24 are to be found in patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,008,272 B2) claims 1, 19-21 as the instant application independent claims 1, 18, 21-24 fully encompasses the patent claim 1, 19-21. The difference between the instant application independent claims 1, 18, 21-24 and the patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,008,272 B2) claims 1, 19-21 lies in the fact that the patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,008,272 B2) claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus, the invention of claims 1, 19-21 of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,008,272 B2) is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the instant application independent claims 1, 18, 21-24. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since the instant application independent claims 1, 18, 21-24 are anticipated by claims 1, 19-21 of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,008,272 B2), it is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 19-21 of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,008,272 B2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 18, 22, 24 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “a printing apparatus comprising: at least one memory that stores a program; and at least one processor that executes the program to perform: receiving a selection of a use environment indicating that the printing apparatus is used at home; and setting values corresponding to the selected use environment indicating that the printing apparatus is used at home”.
The claim limitation of “receiving a selection of a use environment indicating that the printing apparatus is used at home; and setting values corresponding to the selected use environment indicating that the printing apparatus is used at home”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “by a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “selection” & “setting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually selection of a use environment for printer is used at home. Similarly, the limitations of setting values corresponding to the selected use environment indicating that the printer is used at home as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “selection” & “setting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking that the printer should be selecting a use environment for printer is used at home & setting values corresponding to the selected use environment indicating that the printer is used at home. If a claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform both the selecting and settings steps. The processor for last step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic control unit performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the selecting and settings steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The other independent claims 22, 24 are obviously claimed the same subject matter as found in the claim 18 and therefore would be rejected based on same rationale applied on claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. Claims 1, 3, 10-13, 18-19, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshioka, US Pub 2020/0356331.
As to claim 1 [independent], Yoshioka teaches a printing apparatus comprising [fig. 1, element 9]:
at least one memory [fig. 4, element 902 or 907 or 909; 0045] that stores a program [fig. 4, element 902 or 907 or 909; 0045]; and
at least one processor [fig. 4, element 901; 0045] that executes the program to perform [fig. 4, element 902 or 907 or 909; 0045 Yoshioka teaches that the processor 901 access the memory 902 to read programs to implement each function of the image processing task]:
receiving a selection of a use environment of the printing apparatus from among use environments including a first use environment and a second use environment [figs. 9-12; 0070-0071 Yoshioka teaches that the user selected the print use method corresponding to a use environment among first-third print use method/environment on display 940]; and
setting based on setting values corresponding to the selected use environment [figs. 9-12; 0070-0071 Yoshioka teaches that the user selected the second print method/environment among first-third print use method/environment along with desire print settings related to the user selected the second print method/environment (e.g. fig. 10)],
wherein in a case where the second use environment is selected while the first use environment has been selected, a predetermined item that is corresponding to the second use environment and has been set to a setting value included in first setting values corresponding to the first use environment is set to a setting value set before the first use environment is selected [figs. 10, 12; 0070-0071, 0073-0077 Yoshioka teaches that the user selected the second print method/environment among first-third print use method/environment along with desire print settings (e.g. fig. 10), while the user has also selected the first print method/environment among first-third print use method/environment along with desire print settings and selected setting item(s) in both first & second print methods/environments have common and uncommon print setting(s) as also shown in fig. 12].
As to claim 3 [dependent from claim1], Yoshioka teaches wherein the predetermined item that is corresponding to the second use environment is a setting item specified based on second setting values corresponding to the second use environment [fig. 10; 0070-0071 Yoshioka teaches that the user selected the second method/environment among first-third used method/environment along with desire print settings related to the user selected the second method/environment (e.g. fig. 10)].
As to claim 10 [dependent from claim1], Yoshioka teaches wherein the at least one processor executes the program to further perform:
receiving an instruction to set an individual setting item of the printing apparatus after the selection of the use environment is received [figs. 9, 10-12; 0070-0071, 0073-0077 Yoshioka teaches that the user selected the second print method/environment among first-third print use method/environment along with desire print settings (e.g. fig. 10), while the user has also selected the first print method/environment among first-third print use method/environment along with desire print settings and selected setting item(s) in both first & second print methods/environments have common and uncommon print setting(s) as also shown in fig. 12]; and
setting the individual setting item to a setting value instructed by a user [figs. 9, 10-12; 0070-0071, 0073-0077 Yoshioka teaches that the user selected the second print method/environment among first-third print use method/environment along with desire print settings (e.g. fig. 10), while the user has also selected the first print method/environment among first-third print use method/environment along with desire print settings and selected setting item(s) in both first & second print methods/environments have common and uncommon print setting(s) as also shown in fig. 12].
As to claim 11 [dependent from claim 1], Yoshioka teaches wherein the use environments include at least one use environment from among a corporate intranet environment, an Internet direct connection environment, an Internet disabled environment, a home environment, a public space environment, and a highly confidential information management environment [fig. 1; 0026-0028 Yoshioka teaches that the use environments MAY include at least one use environment from a corporate intranet environment or an Internet direct connection environment or an Internet disabled environment or a home environment or a public space environment etc.].
As to claim 12 [dependent from claim 11], Yoshioka teaches wherein the home environment indicates an environment where the printing apparatus is assumed to be used at home [fig. 1; 0026-0028 Yoshioka teaches that the use environments MAY include at least one use environment from a corporate intranet environment or an Internet direct connection environment or an Internet disabled environment or a home environment or a public space environment etc.].
As to claim 13 [dependent from claim 1], Yoshioka teaches wherein the selection of the use environment is received via a panel of the printing apparatus [figs. 9-12; 0070-0071 Yoshioka teaches that the user selected the print use method corresponding to a use environment among first-third print use method/environment on display 940].
As to claim 18 [independent], Yoshioka teaches a printing apparatus comprising [fig. 1, element 9]:
at least one memory [fig. 4, element 902 or 907 or 909; 0045] that stores a program [fig. 4, element 902 or 907 or 909; 0045]; and
at least one processor [fig. 4, element 901; 0045] that executes the program to perform [fig. 4, element 902 or 907 or 909; 0045 Yoshioka teaches that the processor 901 access the memory 902 to read programs to implement each function of the image processing task]:
receiving a selection of a use environment indicating that the printing apparatus is used at home [figs. 9-12; 0070-0071 Yoshioka teaches that the user selected the print use method corresponding to a use environment among first-third print use method/environment on display 940 and the use environments MAY include at least one use environment from a corporate intranet environment or an Internet direct connection environment or an Internet disabled environment or a home environment or a public space environment etc.]; and
setting values corresponding to the selected use environment indicating that the printing apparatus is used at home [figs. 9-12; 0070-0071 Yoshioka teaches that the user selected the print use method corresponding to a use environment among first-third print use method/environment on display 940 and the use environments MAY include at least one use environment from a corporate intranet environment or an Internet direct connection environment or an Internet disabled environment or a home environment or a public space environment etc.].
As to claim 19 [dependent from claim 18], Yoshioka teaches wherein the values corresponding to the selected use environment indicating that the printing apparatus is used at home figs. 9-12; 0070-0071 Yoshioka teaches that the user selected the print use method corresponding to a use environment among first-third print use method/environment on display 940 and the use environments MAY include at least one use environment from a corporate intranet environment or an Internet direct connection environment or an Internet disabled environment or a home environment or a public space environment etc. include a value of a security setting item relating to printing protocol to communicate between the printing apparatus and a client device [0050-0051].
As to claim 21 [independent], However, the independent claim 21 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the independent claim 1 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the independent claim 21 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the independent claim 1.
As to claim 22 [independent], However, the independent claim 22 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the independent claim 18 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the independent claim 22 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the independent claim 18.
As to claim 23 [independent], However, the independent claim 23 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the independent claim 1 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the independent claim 23 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the independent claim 1.
As to claim 24 [independent], However, the independent claim 24 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the independent claim 18 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the independent claim 24 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the independent claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka, US Pub 2020/0356331 in view of Kimura, US Pub 2019/0227757.
As to claim 5 [dependent from claim1], Yoshioka doesn’t teach wherein the setting values corresponding to the selected use environment include a setting value of a security setting item.
Kimura teaches wherein the setting values corresponding to the selected use environment include a setting value of a security setting item [figs. 6a-c; 0031-0033, 0046-0048 Kimura teaches that the selected used environment at least the security setting item (e.g. fig. 6c) related to printing process to be performed at the printer].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kimura teaching to set security setting values corresponding to the selected use environment to modify Yoshioka’s teaching to determine whether a communication in a WLAN infrastructure mode is in execution, and a transmission unit configured to, in a case where it is determined that a communication in the WLAN infrastructure mode is in execution, transmit information indicating that the WLAN setting service is unavailable to a mobile terminal and enables the mobile terminal to easily acquire access point information about the printing apparatus using the camera. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to ensure that issue that the printer can restart a communication in the infrastructure mode to reoccur can be prevented since printing apparatus does not start a new communication in the infrastructure mode before the WLAN setting is performed.
As to claim 6 [dependent from claim 5], Kimura teaches wherein the setting values corresponding to the selected use environment include a setting value of a security setting item relating to printing [figs. 6a-c; 0031-0033, 0046-0048 Kimura teaches that the selected used environment at least the security setting item (e.g. fig. 6c) related to printing process to be performed at the printer].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kimura teaching to set security setting values corresponding to the selected use environment to modify Yoshioka’s teaching to determine whether a communication in a WLAN infrastructure mode is in execution, and a transmission unit configured to, in a case where it is determined that a communication in the WLAN infrastructure mode is in execution, transmit information indicating that the WLAN setting service is unavailable to a mobile terminal and enables the mobile terminal to easily acquire access point information about the printing apparatus using the camera. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to ensure that issue that the printer can restart a communication in the infrastructure mode to reoccur can be prevented since printing apparatus does not start a new communication in the infrastructure mode before the WLAN setting is performed.
As to claim 7 [dependent from claim 6], Kimura teaches wherein the setting values corresponding to the selected use environment include a setting value of a security setting item specific to the printing apparatus [figs. 6a-c; 0031-0033, 0046-0048 Kimura teaches that the selected used environment at least the security setting item (e.g. fig. 6c) related to printing process to be performed at the printer].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kimura teaching to set security setting values corresponding to the selected use environment to modify Yoshioka’s teaching to determine whether a communication in a WLAN infrastructure mode is in execution, and a transmission unit configured to, in a case where it is determined that a communication in the WLAN infrastructure mode is in execution, transmit information indicating that the WLAN setting service is unavailable to a mobile terminal and enables the mobile terminal to easily acquire access point information about the printing apparatus using the camera. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to ensure that issue that the printer can restart a communication in the infrastructure mode to reoccur can be prevented since printing apparatus does not start a new communication in the infrastructure mode before the WLAN setting is performed.
As to claim 8 [dependent from claim 1], Yoshioka doesn’t teach wherein the first setting values corresponding to the first use environment is at least in part different from second setting values corresponding to the second use environment.
Kimura teaches wherein the first setting values corresponding to the first use environment is at least in part different from second setting values corresponding to the second use environment [figs. 6a-c; 0019, 0031-0033, 0046-0048 Kimura teaches that the selected used environment at least the security setting item (e.g. fig. 6c) related to printing process to be performed at the printer is part different than as disclosed in figs. 6a-b].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kimura teaching to set security setting values corresponding to the selected use environment to modify Yoshioka’s teaching to determine whether a communication in a WLAN infrastructure mode is in execution, and a transmission unit configured to, in a case where it is determined that a communication in the WLAN infrastructure mode is in execution, transmit information indicating that the WLAN setting service is unavailable to a mobile terminal and enables the mobile terminal to easily acquire access point information about the printing apparatus using the camera. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to ensure that issue that the printer can restart a communication in the infrastructure mode to reoccur can be prevented since printing apparatus does not start a new communication in the infrastructure mode before the WLAN setting is performed.
14. Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka, US Pub 2020/0356331 in view of Kanai, US Pub 2018/0275939.
As to claim 15 [dependent from claim 1], Yoshioka doesn’t teach wherein the setting values corresponding to the selected use environment include at least a setting value of either a setting item relating to display of a print job history or a setting item relating to automatic deletion of an interrupted print job.
Kanai teaches wherein the setting values corresponding to the selected use environment include at least a setting value of either a setting item relating to display of a print job history or a setting item relating to automatic deletion of an interrupted print job [figs. 2a, 7; 0048-0051 Kanai teaches that the selected use secure environment by the user or administrator relating to a device management protocol to be used by an administrator performs setting item related to display of a print job history (e.g., fig. 7)].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kanai teaching to set setting values corresponding to the selected use environment include at least a setting value of a setting item relating to display of a print job history to modify Yoshioka’s teaching to notify a processing status different from another processing status of an external device in a case of performing the registration for specific print data, where the latter processing status is defined as a processing status indicating completion of processing, and the second processing status is defined as a processing status indicating temporary suspension of processing, and the specific print data is defined as print data for which secure printing setting is performed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to makes able to operate printer in a hold printing mode, so that a received print job is performed in a secure manner, thus preventing a job state from becoming completed when the print data is stored in a storage area.
As to claim 16 [dependent from claim 1], Yoshioka doesn’t teach wherein the setting values corresponding to the selected use environment include a setting value of a security setting item relating to a device management protocol to be used by an administrator of the printing apparatus.
Kanai teaches wherein the setting values corresponding to the selected use environment include a setting value of a security setting item relating to a device management protocol to be used by an administrator of the printing apparatus [figs. 2a, 7; 0048-0051 Kanai teaches that the selected use secure environment by the user or administrator relating to a device management protocol to be used by an administrator performs setting item related to display of a print job history (e.g., fig. 7)].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kanai teaching to set setting values corresponding to the selected use environment include at least a setting value of a setting item relating to display of a print job history to modify Yoshioka’s teaching to notify a processing status different from another processing status of an external device in a case of performing the registration for specific print data, where the latter processing status is defined as a processing status indicating completion of processing, and the second processing status is defined as a processing status indicating temporary suspension of processing, and the specific print data is defined as print data for which secure printing setting is performed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to makes able to operate printer in a hold printing mode, so that a received print job is performed in a secure manner, thus preventing a job state from becoming completed when the print data is stored in a storage area.
As to claim 17 [dependent from claim 1], Yoshioka doesn’t teach wherein the setting values corresponding to the selected use environment include a setting value of a security setting item relating to a password used on the printing apparatus.
Kanai teaches wherein the setting values corresponding to the selected use environment include a setting value of a security setting item relating to a password used on the printing apparatus [figs. 2a-b, 7; 0048-0051 Kanai teaches that the selected use secure environment having using username & password by the user performs setting item related to display of a print job history (e.g., fig. 7)].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kanai teaching to set setting values corresponding to the selected use environment include at least a setting value of a setting item relating to display of a print job history to modify Yoshioka’s teaching to notify a processing status different from another processing status of an external device in a case of performing the registration for specific print data, where the latter processing status is defined as a processing status indicating completion of processing, and the second processing status is defined as a processing status indicating temporary suspension of processing, and the specific print data is defined as print data for which secure printing setting is performed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to makes able to operate printer in a hold printing mode, so that a received print job is performed in a secure manner, thus preventing a job state from becoming completed when the print data is stored in a storage area.
As to claim 20 [dependent from claim 18], Yoshioka doesn’t teach wherein the values corresponding to the selected use environment indicating that the printing apparatus is used at home include a value of a security setting item relating to a device management protocol to be used by an administrator of the printing apparatus.
Kanai teaches wherein the values corresponding to the selected use environment indicating that the printing apparatus is used at home include a value of a security setting item relating to a device management protocol to be used by an administrator of the printing apparatus [figs. 2a, 7; 0048-0051 Kanai teaches that the selected use secure environment by the user or administrator relating to a device management protocol to be used by an administrator performs setting item related to display of a print job history (e.g., fig. 7)].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kanai teaching to set setting values corresponding to the selected use environment include at least a setting value of a setting item relating to display of a print job history to modify Yoshioka’s teaching to notify a processing status different from another processing status of an external device in a case of performing the registration for specific print data, where the latter processing status is defined as a processing status indicating completion of processing, and the second processing status is defined as a processing status indicating temporary suspension of processing, and the specific print data is defined as print data for which secure printing setting is performed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to makes able to operate printer in a hold printing mode, so that a received print job is performed in a secure manner, thus preventing a job state from becoming completed when the print data is stored in a storage area.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 2, 4, 9, 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
16. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The dependent claim 2 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the at least one processor executes the program to further perform: storing the setting value set before the first use environment is selected; in a case where the second use environment is selected while the first use environment has been selected, acquiring the stored setting value set before the first use environment is selected; and setting the predetermined item to the acquired setting value set before the first use environment is selected”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 4 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the predetermined item corresponding to the second use environment is a setting item that is not included in setting items corresponding to second setting values corresponding to the second use environment”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 9 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the at least one processor executes the program to further perform: storing the setting value set before the first use environment is selected; receiving an instruction to cancel the setting based on the setting values corresponding to the selected use environment; and setting the stored setting value set before the use environment is selected”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 14 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the at least one processor executes the program to further perform: providing a user interface to an external information processing apparatus, and wherein the selection of the use environment is received via the user interface screen”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
Conclusion
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARIS SABAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday/Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Benny Tieu, 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. The Examiner’s personal fax number is (571)270-4917.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HARIS SABAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights