DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 6/27/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: "The computer device to claim 17" should be amended to read "The computer device according to claim 17". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A program installation method executed after installing a driver program corresponding to a peripheral device through a first method, the first method including automatically downloading a driver package and automatically installing the driver program in response to a connection signal of the peripheral device, the program installation method comprising: installing an extension program in the driver package” in lines 1-5 where it is unclear whether the extension program is being installed into the driver package or the extension program that is in the driver package is being installed – in the examination of the present application the limitation is interpreted to mean the extension program that is in the driver package is being installed.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the limitation “and the program installation method includes: installing an extension program in the driver package” in lines 7-9 and 9-11 respectively where it is unclear whether the extension program is being installed into the driver package or the extension program that is in the driver package is being installed – in the examination of the present application the limitation is interpreted to mean the extension program that is in the driver package is being installed.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend on claims 1, 8 and 15 above respectively and do not overcome the issue and thus are rejected under the same reasoning.
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, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier et al. (US 2005/0160157 A1) hereinafter Collier in view of Trufinescu et al. (US 2009/0307680 A1) hereinafter Trufinescu and 三枝 弘和 (JP 7433940 B2) hereinafter Hirokazu.
Regarding claim 1, Collier discloses:
the first method including automatically downloading a driver package and automatically installing the driver program in response to a connection signal of the peripheral device, (e.g. Collier [0007] lines 1-6, [0008] lines 1-2, 6-7, and [0023]; which states upon peripheral device connection to a personal computer, automatically downloading and installing a driver package which includes a device driver/program.)
Collier does not disclose:
A program installation method executed after installing a driver program corresponding to a peripheral device through a first method
the program installation method comprising: installing an extension program in the driver package;
and creating a shortcut of the extension program in a user interaction interface according to a device information file.
However, Trufinescu discloses:
the program installation method comprising: installing an extension program in the driver package; (Note: the examiner interprets ‘extension program’ as any program that adds/modifies functionality to/of other driver programs; furthermore, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean the extension program that is in the driver package is being installed. e.g. Trufinescu [0029] lines 2-7 and [0031] lines 2-7; which states a driver package contains driver DLLs, each of which can be dependent/extension files/programs that extend the functionality of the 'core print drivers,' and whose installation is directed by a .inf/information file.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by a person ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Collier’s driver package download/installation to incorporate Trufinescu’s teachings by including the program installation method comprising: installing an extension program in the driver package to extend core printer drivers with dependent DLLs/files to work with different operating systems (e.g. Trufinescu [0029] lines 5-7 and 11-14).
However, Hirokazu discloses:
and creating a shortcut of the extension program in a user interaction interface according to a device information file. (Note: the examiner interprets ‘device information file’ as any file/storage containing information about a peripheral device. e.g. Hirokazu pg. 11 ¶ 2, ¶ 4 and pg. 13 ¶ 4 lines 3-5; which states a button/shortcut displayed/created on a 'print queue' screen (user interface) which activates/opens the extension application and displays a 'print settings screen' presenting settings (color, staples, etc.) according to a 'device capability information file.')
A program installation method executed after installing a driver program corresponding to a peripheral device through a first method (e.g. Hirokazu pg. 3 ¶ 3 lines 3-5 and pg. 11 ¶ 2 lines 4-5; which states after the 'printer driver' program is installed, the 'print extension application' is installed. Additionally, the already installed 'print extension application' activates when the displayed/created "detailed settings" button/shortcut is selected; such that the button/shortcut is only displayed/created after the ‘print extension application’ is installed. Further details on installing the extension program of the program installation method can be found just above in Trufinescu.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by a person ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Collier’s driver package download/installation method to incorporate Hirokazu’s teachings by including A program installation method executed after installing a driver program corresponding to a peripheral device through a first method; and creating a shortcut of the extension program in a user interaction interface according to a device information file “In order for the user to configure print settings (Hirokazu pg. 11 ¶ 2 line 1).”
As to claim 3, Collier discloses:
the driver package includes the driver program (e.g. Collier [0023] lines 2-3; which states a driver package contains a device driver/program.)
Collier does not disclose:
the driver package includes [] the extension program, the device information file, and a dynamic link library file.
However, Trufinescu discloses:
the driver package includes [] the extension program, the device information file, and a dynamic link library file. (e.g. Trufinescu [0029] lines 4-7 and [0031] lines 2-5; which states a driver package includes an .inf/device information file, driver DLLs which are dependent/extension files/programs.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by a person ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Collier’s driver package download/installation method to incorporate Hirokazu’s teachings by including the driver package includes [] the extension program, the device information file, and a dynamic link library file to “direct installation of a given component or driver package (Trufinescu [0031] lines 5-7).”
As to claim 7, Collier discloses:
the connection signal includes a universal serial bus connection signal or a local area network connection signal (e.g. Collier [0018] lines 3-5; which states a local area network connection/signal between a personal computer and peripheral device. The limitation applies an ‘or’ operation to its elements and so requires only a single element to be addressed such as “a local area network connection signal” to read upon the entire claim.)
With regards to claim 8, it is a program claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
As to claim 10, it is a storage medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
As to claim 14, it is a storage medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
With regards to claim 15, it is a computer device claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
As to claim 17, it is a computer device claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier, Trufinescu and Hirokazu, as applied to claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, and 17 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2004/0250265 A1).
As to claim 2, Collier does not disclose:
creating an uninstallation program corresponding to the shortcut
However, Suzuki discloses:
creating an uninstallation program corresponding to the shortcut (e.g. Suzuki [0015] and [0017] lines 3-7; which states uninstallation deletes all components of applications and all settings data required to use the applications; where settings data manages icon/shortcut connection points/ports associated with applications.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by a person ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Collier’s driver package download/installation method to incorporate Suzuki’s teachings by including creating an uninstallation program corresponding to the shortcut “enabling the user to easily uninstall a plurality of device drivers required for using a single device. (Suzuki [0020])”
As to claim 4, Collier does not disclose:
when the uninstallation program corresponding to the driver program and the extension program is executed and the driver program and the extension program are not in use, the driver package, a shortcut and a registry corresponding to the driver program, and the shortcut and registry corresponding to the extension program are deleted.
However, Suzuki discloses:
when the uninstallation program corresponding to the driver program and the extension program is executed and the driver program and the extension program are not in use, the driver package, a shortcut and a registry corresponding to the driver program, and the shortcut and registry corresponding to the extension program are deleted (e.g. Suzuki [0006] lines 3-4, [0012] lines 1-10, [0013] lines 1-10, [0015] lines 4-10, [0017] lines 4-7, [0113] lines 1-3, [0156] lines 3-4, and [0163] lines 1-2; which states the printer driver and scanner driver are viewed as an extension program of each other as their functions can be combined into a copy function; and when the multifunctional device is not in use (thus the driver and extension programs are not in use) the user initiates an uninstallation process associated with deleting the registries of the scanner and printer drivers. Additionally, uninstallation deletes application components and settings data, which manages the respective connection points/ports for which scanner/printer driver/extension application icons/shortcuts are created.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by a person ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Collier’s driver package download/installation method to incorporate Suzuki’s teachings by including when the uninstallation program corresponding to the driver program and the extension program is executed and the driver program and the extension program are not in use, the driver package, a shortcut and a registry corresponding to the driver program, and the shortcut and registry corresponding to the extension program are deleted to conveniently uninstall both the driver and its extension “all at once. (Suzuki [0169] lines 4-7).”
As to claim 6, Collier does not disclose:
before creating the shortcut of the extension program in the user interaction interface according to the device information file, further including adding dynamic link library files and application files corresponding to a status monitor, a network configuration software, or an uninstallation software to the device information file
However, Suzuki discloses:
before creating the shortcut of the extension program in the user interaction interface according to the device information file, further including adding dynamic link library files and application files corresponding to a status monitor, a network configuration software, or an uninstallation software to the device information file (e.g. Suzuki [0057] lines 1-4 and [0176] lines 1-4; which states the uninstaller program is originally stored/added on/to a CD-ROM (which includes an installer and driver files) before mounting to drive and subsequent installation (before a shortcut is created) where CD-ROM is viewed as a device information file/filesystem/storage with respect to the peripheral multifunctional device. Further specifics of a device information file (.inf) are discussed in Trufinescu of Claim 1. Due to the ‘or’ operation of the claim, only a single element such as “adding [] an uninstallation software to the device information file” is required to read upon the entire claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious by a person ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Collier’s driver package download/installation method to incorporate Suzuki’s teachings by including before creating the shortcut of the extension program in the user interaction interface according to the device information file, further including adding dynamic link library files and application files corresponding to a status monitor, a network configuration software, or an uninstallation software to the device information file to store the uninstall program in the same medium as the install program and to be “loaded/executed when required (Suzuki [0176] lines 1-2, 8-9).”
With regards to claim 9, it is a storage medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
With regards to claim 11, it is a storage medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
With regards to claim 13, it is a storage medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
With regards to claim 16, it is a device claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
With regards to claim 18, it is a device claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
With regards to claim 20, it is a device claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim 5, 12, 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier in view of Trufinescu and Hirokazu as applied to claim 3, 10 and 17 above, and further in view of Kumashio et al. (US 2002/0097432 A1).
As to claim 5, Collier does not disclose:
running the dynamic link library file based on the device information file;
and creating the shortcut of the extension program in the user interaction interface through a standard interface function of the dynamic link library, wherein: the device information file is associated with the dynamic link library file of a registered device corresponding to the extension program;
and the dynamic link library file is associated with the standard interface function;
and the standard interface function is configured to create the shortcut of the extension in the user interaction interface through an application programming interface.
However, Trufinescu discloses:
running the dynamic link library file based on the device information file (e.g. Trufinescu [0031] lines 2-3, 5-7; which states a .inf device/information file directs installing/running of a driver package which includes dynamic link library driver files (DLL drivers)).
wherein: the device information file is associated with the dynamic link library file of a registered device corresponding to the extension program; (e.g. Trufinescu [0025] lines 1-4, 11-13, [0026] lines 13-16; which states dynamic link library files are printer driver files for printing devices that connect/register to an application. The specifics of “the device information file is associated with the dynamic link library file” are disclosed in Trufinescu of the previous limitation. Furthermore, the specifics of a print “device corresponding to the extension program” is explained in Trufinescu of claim 1.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Collier’s driver download/installation method with the teachings of Trufinescu by including running the dynamic link library file based on the device information file [] wherein: the device information file is associated with the dynamic link library file of a registered device corresponding to the extension program to use the .inf device information file that identifies the content of the driver package to direct installation of the package (e.g. Trufinescu [0031] lines 5-7).
However, Kumashio discloses:
and creating the shortcut of the extension program in the user interaction interface through a standard interface function of the dynamic link library [] (e.g. Kumashio [0005] lines 5-8 and [0037] lines 12-21; which states a DLL’s interface function enables the ‘print condition settings dialog UI’ (viewed as an extension as it provides optional processing settings) to obtain printer functions. The specifics of “creating a shortcut of the extension program in the user interaction interface” is explained in Hirokazu of claim 1 above and together with the teachings of Kumashio disclose the full limitation.)
and the dynamic link library file is associated with the standard interface function; (The specifics of the association between the dynamic link library file and the standard/interface function are described in Kumashio of the previous limitation.)
and the standard interface function is configured to create the shortcut of the extension in the user interaction interface through an application programming interface. (e.g. Kumashio [0037] lines 15-17; which states that the function “GetPrinterFunc” is itself an API function. The specifics of “to create a shortcut of the extension in the user interaction interface” are explained in Hirokazu of claim 1 above and together with the teachings of Kumashio disclose the full limitation.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Collier’s driver download/installation method with the teachings of Kumashio by including and creating the shortcut of the extension program in the user interaction interface through a standard interface function of the dynamic link library []; and the dynamic link library file is associated with the standard interface function; and the standard interface function is configured to create the shortcut of the extension in the user interaction interface through an application programming interface to set and change print condition settings for optional processing resulting in sophisticated printing (e.g. Kumashio [0005] lines 5-8).
With regards to claim 12, it is a storage medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
With regards to claim 19, it is a computer device claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE A UPADHYAYA whose telephone number is (571)270-0864. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 830am-430pm.
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, CHAT DO can be reached at (571) 272-3721. 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.
/J.A.U./Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights