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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I, encompassing claims 1-7 and 14-15 in the reply filed on 13 April 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s allegation that the examination of all claims “would not present a serious burden (Arguments, page 9) is noted; however, the allegation is unsupported. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 8-13 are therefore withdrawn from consideration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, and 15 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. Reasons for allowance will be provided in the event the application becomes in condition for allowance.
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 0invention 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, 4-6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhorania et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2010/0241660) in view of Ball (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2006/0265661).
Regarding claim 1, Bhorania et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2010/0241660) discloses:
An image forming device comprising:
a processor (paragraph [0070]); and
a memory storing instructions executable by the processor (paragraph [0070]), wherein the processor is to execute the instructions to:
identify a first model name of the image forming device and a fixed name of the image forming device (paragraphs [0004]-[0005], multiple hardware identifiers for the peripheral are provided; “H” is then followed by a two digit identifier- e.g., “11”, “12”, “21”, 22”, etc.; the system initially uses the more specific identifier)
identify functions provided by the image forming device (paragraphs [0004]-[0005], the multiple hardware identifiers are associated with particular functionality)
identify a second model name of the image forming device, according to rules set according to the fixed name, based on the functions provided by the image forming device (paragraphs [0004]-[0006], the system also has more generic identifiers) and
change the first model name to the second model name. (paragraphs [0005]-[0006], the system tries to initially use the most specific hardware identifier, but defaults to a more generic identifier if the system cannot find a match for the specific identifier),
Even assuming arguendo that Bhorania does not explicitly disclose:
identify a first model name of the device
identify a second model name of the image forming device,
change the first model name to the second model name
Ball (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2006/0265661) discloses:
identify a first model name of the image forming device (paragraphs [0028], [0037], GUID); see, for example, paragraph [0002] regarding local printers) and a fixed name of the image forming device (paragraph [0028], UPC)
identify functions provided by the image forming device (paragraph [0029], GUID may be based on features of the device)
identify a second model name of the image forming device, according to rules set according to the fixed name, based on the functions provided by the image forming device (paragraphs [0038]-[0039], [0041]-[0042], [0046], new metadata can cause a recalculation of the GUID as the GUID can be a hash of the existing metadata)
change the first model name to the second model name (Figure 10, paragraphs [0038]-[0039], [0041]-[0042], [0046], the new GUID is stored in the GUID table)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Ball with the system of Bhorania such that the system would have been configured to change the first model name to the second model name as described in Ball. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “provid[ing] more realistic virtualizations and control of the peripheral devices” (paragraph [0007] of the Ball reference).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bhorania and Ball discloses the device of the parent claim (claim 1).
Bhorania does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is further to execute the instructions to: identify a change in a function provided by the image forming device based on at least one of a function extension module connected to the image forming device, firmware of the image forming device, or a license related to the functions provided by the image forming device, and identify the second model name, based on the changed function
Ball additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is further to execute the instructions to: identify a change in a function provided by the image forming device based on at least one of a function extension module connected to the image forming device, firmware of the image forming device (paragraphs [0047]-[0048], new firmware update delivers updated metadata), or a license related to the functions provided by the image forming device, and identify the second model name, based on the changed function (paragraphs [0038]-[0039], [0041]-[0042], [0046], new metadata can cause a recalculation of the GUID as the GUID can be a hash of the existing metadata)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Ball with the system of Bhorania such that the system would have been configured to identify a change in a function provided by the image forming device based on firmware of the image forming device as described in Ball. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “provid[ing] more realistic virtualizations and control of the peripheral devices” (paragraph [0007] of the Ball reference).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bhorania and Ball discloses the device of the parent claim (claim 1).
Bhorania does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising a communication module, wherein the processor is further to execute the instructions to: identify first firmware installed in the image forming device, control the communication module to receive control data comprising second firmware for changing a first function from among functions supported by the image forming device, replace the first firmware with the second firmware based on the received control data, and change the first model name to the second model name based on the changed first function.
Ball additionally discloses:
further comprising a communication module, wherein the processor is further to execute the instructions to: identify first firmware installed in the image forming device, control the communication module to receive control data comprising second firmware for changing a first function from among functions supported by the image forming device, replace the first firmware with the second firmware based on the received control data, and change the first model name to the second model name based on the changed first function (paragraph [0047], a firmware update can cause a metadata update which causes a change in GUID)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Ball with the system of Bhorania such that the system would have been configured to replace the first firmware with the second firmware based on the received control data, and change the first model name to the second model name based on the changed first function as described in Ball. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “provid[ing] more realistic virtualizations and control of the peripheral devices” (paragraph [0007] of the Ball reference).
Regarding claim 5, Bhorania additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is further to execute the instructions to:
identify a connection of a function extension module to change a first function from among functions supported by the image forming device, change the first function based on the connected function extension module (paragraph [0006], initially a first function is attempted to be matched; if the first function cannot be matched, the system changes to the second function), and
change the first model name to the second model name based on the changed first function (paragraph [0006], the match results in a change to hardware identifier)
Regarding claim 6, Bhorania additionally discloses:
further comprising a communication module, wherein the processor is further to execute the instructions to: identify a connection with a host device (paragraph [0006], device is connected to client computer), generate identification information of the image forming device comprising the second model name and a unique identification value of the image forming device based on the connection with the host device (paragraph [0006], device switches to a separate identifier), and control the communication module to transmit the generated identification information of the image forming device to the host device (paragraph [0006], when a match is found, the client computer employs the corresponding function and defined by the driver for the hardware identifier).
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The computer readable medium is explicitly taught as evidenced by paragraph [0078] of Bhorania and claim 14 of Ball.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 PM.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 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 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights