CTNF 18/793,597 CTNF 87222 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1 – 12 are pending in this application. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/02/2024 and 02/12/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Applicant has provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) JP2020126370 A on page 2 of the specification. Applicants have not provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) discussed below. Ono (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2006/0262347 A1) teaches an information processing apparatus that is connected to an image forming apparatus and a finisher as available devices via a network. The information processing apparatus acquires the device information (e.g., capability) of the available device, causes a user to select the available device based on the acquired device information to set a printing function for the selected available device. The information processing apparatus also generates printing control information for causing the selected device to execute the set printing function, and transmits the generated printing control information to the selected device. Hasama (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2006/0262347 A1) provides an information processing apparatus that transmits print data to a server in which information regarding an image forming apparatus is registered in accordance with a registration request from the image forming apparatus, and includes an installed application that sets a setting value included in the print data, the information processing apparatus includes a display unit configured to display a print setting screen provided by the application, a reception unit configured to receive an instruction to set a setting value of a setting item, via the print setting screen, and a determination unit configured to determine whether a conflict occurs between the setting value of the setting item set in accordance with the received instruction and a setting value of a different setting item, based on constraint information acquired from an external apparatus. Shibamori (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2023/0065648 A1) may be one of the closest prior arts, wherein provides a method of controlling an information processing apparatus configured to execute an extension application associated with printing data generation software operatable in the information processing apparatus to extend a function, the method including: obtaining input data including printing setting; displaying a screen related to a specific function on a display unit in a case where it is determined based on the printing setting that the specific function is executed; editing the input data, such that the specific function is executed, to convert the input data into printing data; and transmitting the printing data to a printing apparatus after the screen is displayed on the display unit in the displaying. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: Acquiring Unit, Editing Unit, First Sending Unit and Second Sending Unit in claim 12. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Acquiring Unit is read by the examiner as being item 112 of Fig. 1, described as printing settings extension app 112 in which is found in a memory, Specification on ¶0038, ¶0077 and ¶0090. Editing Unit is read by the examiner as being item 112c of Fig. 1, described as an API, Specification on ¶0076. First sending Unit is read by the examiner as being item 112b of Fig. 1, described as printing workflow processing unit 112b, specification on ¶0127 Second Sending Unit is also read by the examiner as being item 121, described as cloud printing service 121, Specification on ¶0089. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2020/0012459 A1, hereinafter ‘Yamazaki’) in view of Kawasaki (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2023/0214162 A1, hereinafter ‘Kawasaki’) . With respect to claim 1, Yamazaki teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ( e.g., a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’, ¶0080 ) storing printing settings application ( e.g., recording/storing at least a program/software, ¶0080 ), the printing settings application causing a display of an information processing apparatus to display a printing settings screen for setting a printing settings value provided to a printer driver that generates printing settings information ( e.g., one of the program is an application/software for causing a display of an information processing apparatus to display a setting screen for setting print settings parameters provided to a printer driver that generates setting information, ¶0020 - ¶0021, Fig. 3 ), the printing settings application causing the information processing apparatus to perform a control method ( i.e., a control method, ¶0001, ¶0022, claim 9 ), the control method comprising: acquiring to-be-printed intermediate image data provided by an operating system of the information processing apparatus ( e.g., receiving, as an input data, intermediate data provided by an operating system of said information processing apparatus, ¶0024, ¶0027 ); editing the acquired intermediate image data according to a setting value of a certain setting item set on the printing settings screen ( e.g. editing the received intermediate data according to setting values from the setting screen, ¶0052 - ¶0056, ¶0060 - ¶0063, Fig. 10 ); firstly sending print data based on the edited intermediate image data ( e.g., supplying print data based on edited intermediate data to a preview unit 206, ¶0027, ¶0033, Fig. 11 ); and secondly sending a certain value different from the value set via the printing settings screen as the setting value of the certain setting item corresponding to the print data ( e.g., then, if extension exists, then a preview process can be displayed in order to modify/edit setting value via the setting screen, and transmit the modified/edited print data according to extended setting value, ¶0031, ¶0035, ¶0042 - ¶0043, ¶0064 - ¶0070 and ¶0079, Fig. 12 ); but fail to teach that said print driver generate information in accordance with Internet Printing Protocol . However, in the same field of endeavor of editing intermediate data and sending print data, the remaining claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Kawasaki. In particular, Kawasaki teaches: a printer driver that generate information in accordance with Internet Printing Protocol ( e.g., a IPP Class Driver that generate information according to IPP specification, ¶0033, ¶0051 - ¶0053, ¶0060 - ¶0062 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the program of Yamazaki as taught by Kawasaki since Kawasaki suggested within ¶0033, ¶0051 - ¶0053, ¶0060 - ¶0062 that such modification of having a print driver based on IPP would provide a standardized “driverless” printing experience in order to improve reliability or ease of management over the Internet. With respect to claim 2, Yamazaki in view of Kawasaki teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to Claim 1, wherein the certain setting item is a setting item corresponding to a function of laying out the intermediate image data of a plurality of pages onto a single page ( e.g., setting items corresponding to a function of arranging multiple pages on one page, ¶0031, ¶0039 or ¶0049 ). With respect to claim 3, Yamazaki in view of Kawasaki teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to Claim 1, wherein the printer driver is a printer driver provided by an operating system of the information processing apparatus ( e.g., the printer driver is provided by an OS of said information processing apparatus, ¶0022 - ¶0023, Figs. 1 and 2A/2B ). With respect to claim 4, Yamazaki in view of Kawasaki teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to Claim 1, wherein the printer driver is a printer driver that generates print data that can be printed by printers of a plurality of models from a plurality of printer vendors ( e.g., the printer driver generate print data that can be used using several printers from several vendors, ¶0023, ¶0028 with ¶0040 ). With respect to claim 5, Yamazaki in view of Kawasaki teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to Claim 1, wherein Kawasaki teaches the certain value is an attribute value defined in Internet Printing Protocol ( e.g., values/attributes are from an IPP specification, ¶0060 - ¶0062, ¶0089 and/or ¶0095 ). With respect to claim 6, it's rejected for the similar reasons as those described in connection with claim 1. With respect to claim 7, this is a control method claim corresponding to the program claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the program claim 1. With respect to claims 8 - 11, these are control method claims corresponding to the program claim 2 – 5, respectively. Therefore, these are rejected for the same reasons as the program claim 2 – 5, respectively. With respect to claim 12, this is an apparatus claim corresponding to the program claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the program claim 1. Conclusion 07-96 The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Saito (U.S Patent No. 12,248,716 B2) 1 Saigusa (U.S PG Publication No. 2022/0197574 A1) 2 Shiohara (U.S PG Publication No. 2023/0251806 A1) 3 1 This reference teaches an information processing apparatus that converts print setting values to be provided to an operating system of the information processing apparatus into values according to Internet Printing Protocol (IPP). 2 This reference teaches an information processing apparatus configured to generate intermediate data based on attribute information (e.g., Nup, etc.); convert the intermediate data into a raster image; and analyze, via a cloud service, the print setting information. 3 This reference teaches an information processing apparatus configured to acquire capability information based on IPP; edits the intermediate data transmitted from the print data generation software or the print data processed by a print data generation software. Specifically, a print data editing unit changes a layout of the intermediate data or the print data based on the print setting information about the N-up printing that is received from the OS; and additionally analyze the print data, via a cloud print service. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM. 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, Benny Q 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. /JUAN M GUILLERMETY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/793,597 Page 2 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/793,597 Page 3 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/793,597 Page 4 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/793,597 Page 5 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/793,597 Page 6 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/793,597 Page 7 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/793,597 Page 8 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/793,597 Page 9 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/793,597 Page 10 Art Unit: 2682
Prosecution Insights