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 .
This is a non-final office action. Claims 1-17 were considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 07/24/2024 and 01/16/2025 are in compliance with the provision of 37 VFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The oath/declaration filed on 07/24/2024 was received and reviewed by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-10, 12-14 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 1 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20140079045A1, hereinafter Kim) in view of Lee (US20130045678A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an information processing apparatus, comprising circuitry configured ([12, 45]: An object of the present invention is to provide a communication method that is capable of determining a group owner during Wi-Fi Direct connection in consideration of network information) to:
change a setting relating to a role of either a group owner or a client in response to a user operation ([84]: Referring to FIG. 5, the first device may determine whether the first device is determined as the group owner. Upon determining that the first device is the group client (NO of S500), the first device may compare the group owner intent value of the first device with the group owner intent value of the second device. In a case in which the group owner intent value of the first device is greater than the group owner intent value of the second device as the result of comparison (NO of S510), the first device may set the group owner intent value of the first device such that the group owner intent value of the first device is less than the group owner intent value of the second device (S520) (i.e. change the setting relating role of group owner));
determine the role based on the setting related to the role ([84-85]: Upon determining that the first device is the group owner (YES of S500), the first device may compare the group owner intent value of the first device with the group owner intent value of the second device (i.e. determine the role based on set intent value)).
Kim however does not teach wirelessly communicate with another information processing apparatus in the role that is determined.
Lee teaches wirelessly communicate with another information processing apparatus in the role that is determined ([49]: If the second device 250 is designated as a group owner, the second device 250 starts operating as the group owner in step 342. That is, when the second device 250 is designated as a group owner, it operates as AP rather than as a client and performs group owner operations).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Lee and wirelessly communicate with another information processing apparatus in the role that is determined. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to perform group owner operations (Lee, [126]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches a communication method performed by an information processing apparatus, the method comprising:
changing a setting relating to a role of either a group owner or a client in response to a user operation ([84]: Referring to FIG. 5, the first device may determine whether the first device is determined as the group owner. Upon determining that the first device is the group client (NO of S500), the first device may compare the group owner intent value of the first device with the group owner intent value of the second device. In a case in which the group owner intent value of the first device is greater than the group owner intent value of the second device as the result of comparison (NO of S510), the first device may set the group owner intent value of the first device such that the group owner intent value of the first device is less than the group owner intent value of the second device (S520) (i.e. change the setting relating role of group owner));
determining the role based on the setting related to the role([84-85]: Upon determining that the first device is the group owner (YES of S500), the first device may compare the group owner intent value of the first device with the group owner intent value of the second device (i.e. determine the role based on set intent value)).
Kim however does not teach wirelessly communicating with the another information processing apparatus in the role that is determined.
Lee teaches wirelessly communicating with the another information processing apparatus in the role that is determined ([49]: If the second device 250 is designated as a group owner, the second device 250 starts operating as the group owner in step 342. That is, when the second device 250 is designated as a group owner, it operates as AP rather than as a client and performs group owner operations).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Lee and wirelessly communicating with the another information processing apparatus in the role that is determined. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to perform group owner operations (Lee, [126]).
Regarding claim 16, Kim in view of Lee teaches a non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of program codes which, when executed by one or more processors (Kim, [48] and Fig. 2), causes the one or more processors to perform the method according to claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches a communication system comprising: an information processing apparatus (Fig. 1(150)); and another information processing apparatus, the information processing apparatus being configured to wirelessly communicate with the another information processing apparatus (Fig. 1(100)) in a role of either a group owner or a client (Fig. 7 and [95]: The first device may compare the group owner intent value of the first device with the group owner intent value of the second device (S750) to set the group owner intent value of the first device such that the group owner intent value of the device determined as the group owner at step S730 is greater than the group owner intent value of the device determined as the group client (S760)), the information processing apparatus including circuitry configured to:
change a setting relating to the role in response to a user operation ([84]: Referring to FIG. 5, the first device may determine whether the first device is determined as the group owner. Upon determining that the first device is the group client (NO of S500), the first device may compare the group owner intent value of the first device with the group owner intent value of the second device. In a case in which the group owner intent value of the first device is greater than the group owner intent value of the second device as the result of comparison (NO of S510), the first device may set the group owner intent value of the first device such that the group owner intent value of the first device is less than the group owner intent value of the second device (S520) (i.e. change the setting relating role of group owner));
determine the role based on the setting related to the role ([84-85]: Upon determining that the first device is the group owner (YES of S500), the first device may compare the group owner intent value of the first device with the group owner intent value of the second device (i.e. determine the role based on set intent value)).
Kim however does not teach wirelessly communicate with the another information processing apparatus in the role, the another information processing apparatus being configured to communicate with the information processing apparatus in the role different from the role that the information processing apparatus wirelessly communicates.
Lee teaches wirelessly communicate with the another information processing apparatus in the role ([49]: If the second device 250 is designated as a group owner, the second device 250 starts operating as the group owner in step 342. That is, when the second device 250 is designated as a group owner, it operates as AP rather than as a client and performs group owner operations (i.e. second device communicates with other devices as owner)), the another information processing apparatus being configured to communicate with the information processing apparatus in the role different from the role that the information processing apparatus wirelessly communicates ([49]: After transmitting a beacon signal in step 345, the second device 250 performs authentication with the first device 200 in step 350 and performs association with the first device 200 in step 355, thus establishing connection in step 360 (i.e. first device operates as client)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Lee and wirelessly communicate with the another information processing apparatus in the role, the another information processing apparatus being configured to communicate with the information processing apparatus in the role different from the role that the information processing apparatus wirelessly communicates. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to perform group owner operations (Lee, [126]).
Claim 2-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20140368863 A1, hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Lee teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Kim teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: receive, as the user operation, a change of the setting relating to the role ([84-85]: In a case in which the group owner intent value of the first device is greater than the group owner intent value of the second device as the result of comparison (NO of S510), the first device may set the group owner intent value of the first device such that the group owner intent value of the first device is less than the group owner intent value of the second device (S520) (i.e. receive setting relating to group owner role)).
Kim in view of Lee however does not teach control a display to display a screen for receiving the setting relating to the role.
Suzuki teaches control a display to display a screen for receiving the setting relating to the role ([54]: In S702, the MFP 100 determines whether the setting performed in terms of the role of group owner/client of the MFP 100 exists in the nonvolatile memory 105. This setting is performed by a user in advance using the operation unit 107 and the display unit 108 to specify which role is to be given to the MFP 100 in the role determination phase. In a case where the setting specifies the group owner, the processing flow proceeds to S709. In a case where the client is specified in the setting, the processing flow proceeds to S706. In a case where neither is specified, the processing flow proceeds to S703. Although in the present example, the setting of the role of the group owner/client is performed by a user using the operation unit 107 and the display unit 108, the owner intent value may be directly specified).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki and control a display to display a screen for receiving the setting relating to the role. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to specify which role is to be given to the MFP (Suzuki, [54]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Lee and Suzuki teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2.
Suzuki teaches wherein, in a case that the information processing apparatus fails to be wirelessly connected to the another information processing apparatus (Fig. 9(712) and [77]: The MFP 100 determines that the connection has failed (S712). In S712, the MFP 100 may display a message indicating that the connection has failed.), the circuitry is configured to control the display to display a message prompting the change of the setting relating to the role ([77, 81]: In S712, the MFP 100 may display a message indicating that the connection has failed. The MFP 100 performs the process of setting the Intent Owner value or changing the content of displayed information. [54]: The setting of the role of the group owner/client is performed by a user using the operation unit 107 and the display unit 108, the owner intent value may be directly specified.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Lee and Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki and in a case that the information processing apparatus fails to be wirelessly connected to the another information processing apparatus, the circuitry is configured to control the display to display a message prompting the change of the setting relating to the role. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to specify the role (Suzuki, [54]).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Lee teaches a system comprising: the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Kim in view of Lee however does not teach a display apparatus connected to the information processing apparatus, the display apparatus including a display.
Suzuki teaches a display apparatus connected to the information processing apparatus, the display apparatus including a display (Fig. 1(107,108) and [54]: This setting is performed by a user in advance using the operation unit 107 and the display unit 108 to specify which role is to be given to the MFP 100 in the role determination phase (i.e. display unit 108 is connected to processing unit 107)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki and a display apparatus connected to the information processing apparatus, the display apparatus including a display. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to specify the role (Suzuki, [54]).
Additional References
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Namie et al., US 20240169954 A1: DISPLAY APPARATUS, NON-TRANSITORY RECORDING MEDIUM, AND DISPLAY METHOD.
b. Abraham et al., US 20180285048 A1: AUTOMATED DISPLAY CONFIGURATION.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUJANA KHAKURAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3704. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUJANA KHAKURAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2453
/DHAIRYA A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights