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 .
Claim Interpretation
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a display unit” and “a print unit” in claim 1.
The specification describes a display unit as an output unit 220 in combination with an information output unit 402 and describes a print unit as a print control unit 404. Both units are controlled by a CPU and therefore there is sufficient structure in the specification to avoid a 35 USC 12(b) rejection.
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.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2020/0073606).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Park discloses a method for controlling an information processing device having an operating system (OS) standard printing function and an information processing device having an operating system (OS) standard printing function, the information processing device comprising:
a display unit configured to display information regarding a cloud printer registered in the OS standard printing function (see Figs. 2 and 3 and paras 41, 105, 108-109, and 135, user terminal 200 allows a user to register and view a cloud printer); and
a print unit configured to instruct a cloud printer registered in the OS standard printing function to perform printing (see para 98, a user can perform a printing process from an application installed on user terminal 200),
wherein while a first user is logged in to the information processing device, the display unit displays information regarding a cloud printer registered in the OS standard printing function by the first user (see paras 54-58, 78, 80, 100-102, 105, 120-121, 125-128, and 135, only an authorized user can select and print to a registered cloud printer), and
while a second user different from the first user is logged in to the information processing device, the display unit does not display information regarding a cloud printer registered in the OS standard printing function by the first user and not registered in the OS standard printing function by the second user (see paras 54-58, 78, 80, 100-102, 105, 120-121, 125-128, and 135, only an authorized user can select and print to a registered cloud printer).
Regarding claim 2, Park further discloses wherein the second user is a user who does not belong to the same tenant as the first user (see paras 54-58, 78, 80, 100-102, 105, 120-121, 125-128, and 135, only an authorized user can select and print to a registered cloud printer, reference makes no mention of user’s belong to the same tenant).
Regarding claim 6, Park further discloses a print server that provides the cloud printer; and a printing device that is registered in the print server as the cloud printer (see paras 54-58, 108-109, and 120-121, the combination of cloud 400 and authentication server 500 acts as a print server that provides registering of a cloud printer and printing to a cloud printer).
Regarding claim 7, Park further discloses a non-transitory storage medium that stores a program for enabling a computer to function as the units included in the information processing device according to claim 1 (see paras 138-140 and claim 20).
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sako (US 2022/0147289).
Regarding claim 3, Park does not disclose expressly wherein while a third user belonging to the same tenant as the first user is logged in to the information processing device, the display unit displays information regarding a cloud printer registered in the OS standard printing function by the first user and not registered in the OS standard printing function by the third user.
Sako discloses wherein while a third user belonging to the same tenant as the first user is logged in to the information processing device, the display unit displays information regarding a cloud printer registered in the OS standard printing function by the first user and not registered in the OS standard printing function by the third user (see paras 113-115, users from the same tenant can shared registered cloud printers).
Regarding claim 5, Park does not disclose expressly wherein the print unit uses the Internet Printing Protocol to instruct the cloud printer to perform printing.
Sako discloses wherein the print unit uses the Internet Printing Protocol to instruct the cloud printer to perform printing (see paras 56 and 91, printing device 100 utilizes IPP).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sharing of registered cloud printers with users of the same tenant and the use of IPP, as described by Sako, with the system of Park.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to avoid unnecessary and repetitive registering of cloud printers for the users of a group/tenant. IPP is a widely used and supported protocol for printing devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sako with Park to obtain the invention as specified in claims 3 and 5.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
Park does not disclose expressly wherein while the second user is logged in to the information processing device, the display unit displays information regarding a local printer registered in the OS standard printing function by the first user and not registered in the OS standard printing function by the second user.
Official Notice is being taken as it is well known in the art that locally connected printers do not require registration associated with authorized users and as such all users of a user terminal would have the ability to print to and utilize a local printer.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the displaying of local printers to a second user of an information processing device with the system of Park.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to avoid unnecessary and repetitive registering of printers thereby saving time and increasing user friendliness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Official Notice with Park to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R MILIA whose telephone number is (571) 272-7408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/MARK R MILIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights