Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/687,480

AUTOMATIC PRINTER SELECTION FOR UNIVERSAL PRINTER DRIVER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 28, 2024
Examiner
CATO, MIYA J
Art Unit
2681
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
513 granted / 670 resolved
+14.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
694
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
§103
54.5%
+14.5% vs TC avg
§102
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§112
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 670 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. Drawings The drawings received on 2/28/2024 are accepted for examination purposes. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claim(s) 1-2, 9-10, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awata (US-2011/0188064) in view of Lee et al. (US-2009/0216912). As to Claim 1, Awata teaches ‘An information processing apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a memory to store instructions executable by the processor, wherein, by executing the instructions, the processor is to: receive a network event; detect, based on the network event, whether the information processing apparatus is attached to a new-in-driver-perspective network [par 0037, 0048 – network information acquiring section acquires network information for determining whether or not a second network connected to the PC this time is identical to a first network connected to the PC previous time, with the PC has installed a universal printer driver that can support a plurality of printers by itself; par 0073-0074 – printer driver section acquires network information when a printer driver is active that was acquired at the time of previous activation of the printer driver, if no network information is stored, it is determined that the PC is connected to a network for the first time, and search module acquires from network management section network information of a first network to which the PC is being currently connected]; if it is detected that the information processing apparatus is attached to the new-in-driver-perspective network, detect whether there remains available in the new-in-driver-perspective network a destination printer for use by a universal printer driver (UPD) of the information processing apparatus in a previously attached network [par 0011, 0037, 0076 – the PC includes a universal printer driver and judges whether or not network information acquired this time is different from the network information acquired previous time; par 0129-0130 – in a case where it is determined that the network environment has changed, the search module judges whether or not a printer list of the current network (the second network 12) is stored in the printer search result list storage section]; and if it is detected that the destination printer remains available, setting the already set destination printer as a destination printer of the UPD in the new-in-driver-perspective network, wherein the new-in-driver-perspective network comprises a network to which the information processing apparatus has not been attached or a network in which a destination printer of the UPD has been set and not been used [par 0142 – allowing a user to select, as a destination printer in a current network environment, a familiar printer used in a previous network environment even in a case where the current network environment is different from the previous network environment]’. Awata does not disclose expressly ‘a destination printer that is already set for use…; already set destination printer remains available, automatically setting the already set destination printer as a destination printer, in which a destination printer of the UPD has automatically been set and not been used’. Lee teaches ‘a destination printer that is already set for use…; already set destination printer remains available, automatically setting the already set destination printer as a destination printer, in which a destination printer of the UPD has automatically been set and not been used [par 0018 – the networks can be any of a variety of different networks computing device can be coupled to and automatically selecting a first printer as default when on user’s work network, a second printer when on user’s home network, and a third printer when on a hotel’s network that user frequently visits; par 0025 – computing device can optionally include GPS coordinate data indicating current location of computing device, where the GPS coordinate data can be optionally broadened out to include a wider range; par 0048-0050 – setting a default peripheral device as location-based by obtaining current location of computing device and storing mapping of identified peripheral device to current location; Fig 5, par 0053-0056 – default peripheral device selection user interface screen includes default peripheral device identifier and location networks]’. Awata and Lee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include default peripheral devices, as taught by Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to relieving a user from needing to set default peripheral devices each time computing device is coupled to a different network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee with Awata to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1. Further, in regards to claim 9, the information processing apparatus of claim 1 performs the method of claim 9. Further, in regards to claim 14, the method of claim 9 is fully embodied on the non-transitory computer readable recording medium of claim 14. As to Claim 2, Awata in view of Lee teaches ‘wherein the memory comprises first information and second information, wherein the first information comprises a pair of printer information and a network identifier corresponding to the already set destination printer of the UPD, wherein the second information comprises pairs of printer information and network identifiers corresponding to printers which have been used by the UPD, and wherein the processor is to detect, based on the network event, whether the information processing apparatus is attached to the new-in-driver-perspective network by: receiving a current network identifier of a network environment to which the information processing apparatus is currently attached; if the current network identifier is different from the network identifier in the first information, detecting whether the current network identifier is matched with one of the network identifiers comprised in the second information; and in response to detecting that the current network identifier is not matched with any of the network identifiers, detecting that the information processing apparatus is attached to the new-in-driver-perspective network [Awata: par 0037 – universal printer driver; par 0048 – network information acquiring section acquires network information for determining whether or not a second network connected to the PC this time is identical to a first network connected to the PC 10 previous time; 0065-0067 – search result list storage section includes, for example manufactures of printers, model names of printers, IP addresses of printers corresponding to network information, names of printers, availability of printers; par 0073-0074 – printer driver section acquires network information when a printer driver is active that was acquired at the time of previous activation of the printer driver, if no network information is stored, it is determined that the PC is connected to a network for the first time, and search module acquires from network management section network information of a first network to which the PC is being currently connected; par 0076-0077, 0124 – in a case where it is determined that the network environment has changed, searching for printers connected to the first network 11 (S7); par 0086 – IP addresses and manufactures of printing systems (printers and PCs) are different based on locations; par 0129-0130 – in a case where it is determined that the network environment has changed, the search module judges whether or not a printer list of the current network (the second network 12) is stored in the printer search result list storage section; Lee: par 0018 – the networks can be any of a variety of different networks computing device can be coupled to and automatically selecting a first printer as default when on user’s work network, a second printer when on user’s home network, and a third printer when on a hotel’s network that user frequently visits; par 0025 – computing device can optionally include GPS coordinate data indicating current location of computing device, where the GPS coordinate data can be optionally broadened out to include a wider range; par 0048-0050 – setting a default peripheral device as location-based by obtaining current location of computing device and storing mapping of identified peripheral device to current location; Fig 5, par 0053-0056 – default peripheral device selection user interface screen includes default peripheral device identifier and location networks]’. Awata and Lee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include default peripheral devices, as taught by Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to relieving a user from needing to set default peripheral devices each time computing device is coupled to a different network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee with Awata to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2. As to Claims 10 and 15, Awata in view of Lee teaches ‘wherein the detecting, based on the network event, whether an information processing apparatus is attached to the new-in- driver-perspective network comprises: receiving a current network identifier of a network environment to which the information processing apparatus is currently attached; acquiring, from a memory, first information comprising a pair of printer information and a network identifier corresponding to the already set destination printer of the UPD; if the current network identifier is different from the network identifier in the first information, acquiring, from the memory, second information comprising pairs of printer information and network identifiers corresponding to printers which have been used by the UPD; detecting whether the current network identifier is matched with one of the network identifiers comprised in the second information; and in response to detecting that the current network identifier is not matched with any of the network identifiers, detecting that the information processing apparatus is attached to the new-in-driver-perspective network [Awata: par 0037 – universal printer driver; par 0048 – network information acquiring section acquires network information for determining whether or not a second network connected to the PC this time is identical to a first network connected to the PC 10 previous time; 0065-0067 – search result list storage section includes, for example manufactures of printers, model names of printers, IP addresses of printers corresponding to network information, names of printers, availability of printers; par 0073-0074 – printer driver section acquires network information when a printer driver is active that was acquired at the time of previous activation of the printer driver, if no network information is stored, it is determined that the PC is connected to a network for the first time, and search module acquires from network management section network information of a first network to which the PC is being currently connected; par 0076-0077, 0124 – in a case where it is determined that the network environment has changed, searching for printers connected to the first network 11 (S7); par 0086 – IP addresses and manufactures of printing systems (printers and PCs) are different based on locations; par 0129-0130 – in a case where it is determined that the network environment has changed, the search module judges whether or not a printer list of the current network (the second network 12) is stored in the printer search result list storage section; Lee: par 0018 – the networks can be any of a variety of different networks computing device can be coupled to and automatically selecting a first printer as default when on user’s work network, a second printer when on user’s home network, and a third printer when on a hotel’s network that user frequently visits; par 0025 – computing device can optionally include GPS coordinate data indicating current location of computing device, where the GPS coordinate data can be optionally broadened out to include a wider range; par 0048-0050 – setting a default peripheral device as location-based by obtaining current location of computing device and storing mapping of identified peripheral device to current location; Fig 5, par 0053-0056 – default peripheral device selection user interface screen includes default peripheral device identifier and location networks]’. Awata and Lee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include default peripheral devices, as taught by Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to relieving a user from needing to set default peripheral devices each time computing device is coupled to a different network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee with Awata to obtain the invention as specified in claims 10 and 15. Claim(s) 3-5, 7 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awata in view of Lee et al. and further in view of Li (US-2021/0006684). As to Claims 3 and 11, Awata in view of Lee teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claims 2 and 10, respectively and independent claims 1 and 9, respectively. Awata in view of Lee does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the processor is to detect whether there remains available in the new-in-driver- perspective network the already set destination printer by detecting whether there remains available to the UPD an existing print channel of the already set destination printer indicated in the first information’. Li in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the processor is to detect whether there remains available in the new-in-driver- perspective network the already set destination printer by detecting whether there remains available to the UPD an existing print channel of the already set destination printer indicated in the first information [par 0085-0086, 0103, 0105, 0117-0121, 0124, 0153 – determining whether a communication is able to be or needs to be established, where the phone may be switched to connecting to a wireless network corresponding to an automatically selected target image-forming device and the different wireless network types may include wireless access points, soft APs, Wi-Fi direct wireless networks]’. Awata in view of Lee are analogous art with Li because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include determining whether communication needs to be established, as taught by Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to improving efficiency, convenience and shortening a search time when selecting a target image-forming device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li with Awata in view of Lee to obtain the invention as specified in claims 3 and 11. As to Claims 4 and 12, Li in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the processor is to detect whether there remains available in the new-in-driver- perspective network the already set destination printer by detecting whether there is available to the UPD a print channel that is different from an existing print channel of the already set destination printer indicated in the first information [par 0085-0086, 0103, 0105, 0117-0121, 0124, 0153 – determining whether a communication is able to be or needs to be established, where the phone may be switched to connecting to a wireless network corresponding to an automatically selected target image-forming device if not on same network and the different wireless network types may include wireless access points, soft APs, Wi-Fi direct wireless networks]’. Awata in view of Lee are analogous art with Li because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include determining whether communication needs to be established, as taught by Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to improving efficiency, convenience and shortening a search time when selecting a target image-forming device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li with Awata in view of Lee to obtain the invention as specified in claims 4 and 12. As to Claim 5, Li teaches ‘wherein the different print channel comprises a remote print channel [par 0085 – the different wireless network types may include wireless access points, soft APs, Wi-Fi direct wireless networks (i.e., remote print channels)]’. Awata in view of Lee are analogous art with Li because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include determining whether communication needs to be established, as taught by Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to improving efficiency, convenience and shortening a search time when selecting a target image-forming device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li with Awata in view of Lee to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5. As to Claim 7, Li in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the processor is further to display, on a user interface of the information processing apparatus, information regarding the automatically set destination printer [par 0103, 0105, 0153, 0157 – the recorded target image-forming device may be automatically selected as the current target image-forming device at step 103, rather than selecting the target image-forming device required by the user manually or by the communication intensity based on user choosing automatic connection of the image-forming device in a selection screen displayed]’. Awata in view of Lee are analogous art with Li because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a selection screen, as taught by Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to improving efficiency, convenience and shortening a search time when selecting a target image-forming device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li with Awata in view of Lee to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7. Claim(s) 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awata in view of Lee et al. and further in view of Ciriza et al. (US-2011/0310428). As to Claims 6 and 13, Awata in view of Lee teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claims 2 and 10, respectively and independent claims 1 and 9, respectively. Awata in view of Lee does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the memory further comprises third information, wherein the third information comprises user-specified printer information, and wherein the processor is further to, if the already set destination printer indicated in the first information is not available to the UPD and a printer corresponding to the printer information in the third information is available to the UPD, automatically set the printer corresponding to the printer information in the third information as the destination printer of the UPD’. Awata teaches par 0051-0052 – judging which printer has been set as a default printer on user interface; par 0066-0067, 0085-0086 – search condition setting section managers printer search condition which a user is able to specify search conditions while determining the availability of the printers searched. Lee teaches par 0048-0050 – setting a default peripheral device as location-based by obtaining current location of computing device and storing mapping of identified peripheral device to current location; Fig 5, par 0053-0056 – default peripheral device selection user interface screen includes default peripheral device identifier and location networks. Ciriza in the proposed combination of Awata in view of Lee teaches ‘wherein the memory further comprises third information, wherein the third information comprises user-specified printer information, and wherein the processor is further to, if the already set destination printer indicated in the first information is not available to the UPD and a printer corresponding to the printer information in the third information is available to the UPD, automatically set the printer corresponding to the printer information in the third information as the destination printer of the UPD [par 0065-0066, 0074, 0079 – each workstation may be configured for designating any one of the printers as its default (target) printer and a subset of the printers as alternate printers and in a case where a user’s favored printer is not available for printing, selecting another available printer to replace it for printing a job]’. Awata in view of Lee are analogous art with Ciriza because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include selecting an alternative printer, as taught by Ciriza. The motivation for doing so would have been to identifying improved efficiencies while indirectly achieving an energy savings due to behavioral change. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ciriza with Awata in view of Lee to obtain the invention as specified in claims 6 and 13. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 8 is 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. Awata in view of Lee, Li and further in view of the prior art searched and/or cited does not teach nor suggest the combination of limitations including “wherein the printer information in the first information comprises a first flag and a second flag, wherein the first flag is indicative of whether the already set destination printer has actually performed a print job through the UPD, wherein the second flag is indicative of whether the already set destination printer has automatically been selected by the UPD, and wherein the processor is further to, after receiving the network event, add the pair of the printer information and the network identifier in the first information to the second information if the first flag is set to True or the second flag is set to False” as recited in dependent claim 8. Conclusion The prior art made of record a. US Publication No. 2011/0188064 b. US Publication No. 2009/0216912 c. US Publication No. 2021/0006684 d. US Publication No. 2011/0310428 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530. 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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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. /MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597127
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF LESIONS IN LOCAL LYMPH AND DISTANT METASTASES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586415
INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND INFORMATION TERMINAL TO ASSIST USER LEARNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586673
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RADIATION ENTRY IN DOSE MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575895
MIXED REALITY IMAGE GUIDANCE FOR MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569319
COMBINED FACE SCANNING AND INTRAORAL SCANNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+12.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 670 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month