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) 1-4 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sako (US 2022/0147289).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Sako discloses a method for controlling an information processing device having an operating system (OS) standard printing function and an information processing device (100) having an operating system (OS) standard printing function (see paras 46 and 49, printing function), the information processing device comprising:
a display unit configured to display a search screen including a first graphical object used to acquire, from a user, an instruction to search for a cloud printer to be registered in the OS standard printing function (see Figs. 1 and 2 and paras 45, 49, 71, and 79, operation panel 111 in conjunction with operation control unit 200 display a search screen displaying a list of cloud printers to be registered); and
a print unit configured to instruct a cloud printer registered in the OS standard printing function to perform printing (see Figs. 1 and 2 and paras 11, 36, and 66-69, printer 107 in conjunction with print processing unit 207 instruct printing to a registered cloud printer),
wherein, in a case where the user is not logged in to a cloud print service when the search screen is to be displayed, the display unit displays a second graphical object used to acquire, from the user, an instruction to start login processing to enable the user to log in to the cloud print service (see Figs. 5B and 6 and paras 46-47 and 61, if a user is not logged in and selects to register a cloud printer a login screen is displayed to allow the user to log in).
Regarding claim 2, Sako further discloses wherein, in a case where the user is logged in to the cloud print service when the search screen is to be displayed, the display unit does not display the second graphical object (see Fig. 12C, if a user is logged in, no log in screen would be displayed).
Regarding claim 3, Sako further discloses wherein the second graphical object is a button included in the search screen, and in response to the button being pressed by the user, the display unit displays a dialog box used to acquire, from the user, credentials used to perform the login processing (see Fig. 6 and paras 49 and 60-61, when a register button is pressed a login screen is displayed to the user).
Regarding claim 4, Sako further discloses wherein the second graphical object is a dialog box used to acquire, from the user, credentials used to perform the login processing (see Fig. 5B and para 61, a login screen is displayed to the user to enter credentials).
Regarding claim 7, Sako further discloses wherein the search screen further includes a list of one or more printers registered in the OS standard printing function (see Fig. 12C and paras 71 and 110-111, registration utility 401 acquires a list of cloud printers).
Regarding claim 8, Sako further discloses wherein, in a case where a cloud printer is registered in the OS standard printing function, the list includes information indicating a cloud print service that provides the cloud printer (see paras 36 and 66-68, a user can select a cloud printer to perform printing).
Regarding claim 9, Sako further discloses wherein the print unit uses the Internet Printing Protocol to instruct the cloud printer to perform printing (see paras 36, 56, 71, and 91, an IPP can be utilized).
Regarding claim 10, Sako further discloses the information processing device according to claim 1;
a print server that provides the cloud printer (see Fig. 4 and paras 42-44, cloud print registration service 420 and cloud print printing service 430); and
a printing device that is registered in the print server as the cloud printer (see Fig. 4 and para 42, printing device 100, 411, and 412).
Regarding claim 11, Sako 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 para 131, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium can store a program to enable a computer to perform the functions as set forth in claim 1).
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sako as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimada et al. (US 2024/0080396).
Regarding claim 5, Sako does not disclose expressly wherein the first graphical object is a graphical object used to acquire, from the user, an instruction to search for a cloud printer and a local printer together.
Shimada discloses wherein the first graphical object is a graphical object used to acquire, from the user, an instruction to search for a cloud printer and a local printer together (see Fig. 4 and paras 46 and 50, a user can search for cloud and local printers at the same time).
Regarding claim 6, Sako discloses wherein the first graphical object is a graphical object used to acquire, from the user, an instruction to search for a cloud printer without searching for a local printer (see para 71, registration utility 401 acquires a list of cloud printers).
Sako does not disclose expressly the search screen further includes a third graphical object used to acquire, from the user, an instruction to search for a local printer.
Shimada discloses the search screen further includes a third graphical object used to acquire, from the user, an instruction to search for a local printer (see Fig. 4 and paras 46 and 50, a user can search for cloud and local printers).
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 searching for cloud and local printers, as described by Shimada, with the system of Sako.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a user with all available options to perform a print job thereby increasing user friendliness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shimada with Sako to obtain the invention as specified in claims 5 and 6.
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