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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 requires the standby control circuitry to “stop standing” when the infrastructure connection is established. However claim 3, then states the standby control circuitry “continues to stand”. A dependent claim can not remove conditions from a previous dependent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suga (20250008408) in view of Ohkubo (20190335519).
As per claim 1, Suga shows the use of a wireless apparatus wirelessly communicable with an information processing apparatus, the wireless apparatus comprising: wireless control circuitry configured to stand by for both a first infrastructure connection and a second infrastructure connection from the information processing apparatus (e.g., figure 1 and abstract); and standby control circuitry configured to cause the wireless control circuitry to stop standing by for the P2P connection when the wireless control circuitry establishes the infrastructure connection with the information processing apparatus (e.g., abstract). Suga does not show that one of the connections is a P2P connection. Ohkubo shows the use of one of the connections being P2P (e.g., paragraph 113). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method of Suga with Ohkubo because it would provide alternative means to communicate when access points are not available.
As per claim 2, Suga shows the use of wherein while the wireless control circuitry continues to stand by for the infrastructure connection with the information processing apparatus, the standby control circuitry causes the wireless control circuitry to stop standing by only for the first infrastructure connection when the second infrastructure connection is established with the information processing apparatus (e.g., figure 1 and abstract). Suga does not show that one of the connections is a P2P connection. Ohkubo shows the use of one of the connections being P2P (e.g., paragraph 113). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method of Suga with Ohkubo because it would provide alternative means to communicate when access points are not available.
As per claim 3, Suga shows the use of wherein when the wireless control circuitry establishes the infrastructure connection with the information processing apparatus, the standby control circuitry continues to stand by for another infrastructure connection (e.g., paragraph 51, MFP can operate concurrent communication modes which include P2P and infrastructure).
As per claim 4, Suga shows the use of wherein when the wireless control circuitry establishes the P2P connection with the information processing apparatus, the standby control circuitry continues to stand by for the infrastructure connection (e.g., paragraph 51, MFP can operate concurrent communication modes which include P2P and infrastructure).
As per claim 5, Suga shows the use of wherein when the wireless control circuitry establishes the P2P connection with the information processing apparatus, the standby control circuitry does not cause the wireless continues to stand by for another P2P connection (e.g., paragraph 51, MFP can operate concurrent communication modes which include P2P and infrastructure).
As per claim 6, Suga shows the use of a display to display a screen that accepts switching between enabling and disabling a control for stopping standing by for the P2P connection during the infrastructure connection,
PNG
media_image1.png
87
9
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, when the control is enabled on the screen, the standby control circuitry causes the wireless control circuitry to stop standing by for the P2P connection in a case where the wireless control circuitry establishes the infrastructure connection with the information processing apparatus (e.g., figure 3C, enabling/disabling each type of connection).
As per claim 7, Suga shows the use of further comprising a storage area that stores correspondence information including identification information of an access point for which the standby control circuitry performs control for stopping standing by for the P2P connection during the infrastructure connection, wherein when the correspondence information includes the identification information of the access point being connected to the wireless control circuitry and the wireless control circuitry establishes the infrastructure connection with the information processing apparatus, the standby control circuitry causes the wireless control circuitry to stop standing by for the P2P connection (e.g., figures 1, 2B, 3 and abstract).
As per claim 8, Suga shows the use of further comprising: a display, wherein when the standby control circuitry causes the wireless control circuitry to stop standing by for the P2P connection during the infrastructure connection with the information processing apparatus, the display displays that the wireless apparatus has stopped standing by for the P2P connection (e.g., figure 3).
As per claim 10, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1. In addition, Suga shows the use of the information processing apparatus including circuitry configured to perform an infrastructure connection with the wireless apparatus (e.g., figure 5).
As per claims 11-12, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 13, Suga shows the use of wherein the standby control circuitry performs the standby for the infrastructure connection and the standby for the P2P connection when the information processing apparatus is not in the infrastructure connection (e.g., paragraph 51, MFP can operate concurrent communication modes which include P2P and infrastructure).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suga (20250008408) in view of Ohkubo (20190335519) in further view of Klemets (20190199791).
As per claim 9, Suga and Ohkubo do not show, however Klemets shows the use of wherein the wireless control circuitry communicates with the information processing apparatus in accordance with a MiracastTM communication standard (e.g., paragraph 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method of Suga with Klemets because it would allow Miracast capable devices to detect the presence of other Miracast devices.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suga (20250008408) in view of Ohkubo (20190335519) in further view of Yee (20080069047).
As per claim 14, Suga shows the use of wherein the standby control circuitry stops the standby for the P2P connection when the information processing apparatus is in the infrastructure connection (e.g., figure 1 and abstract). Suga does not show, but Yee shows even when there is a second information processing apparatus capable of the P2P connection (e.g., figure 2, additional wireless clients to connect to). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method of Suga with Yee because it would allow wireless clients to communicate with additional wireless clients.
As per claim 15, Suga shows the use of wherein the standby control circuitry stops the standby for the P2P connection with the information processing apparatus is disconnected when the information processing apparatus establishes the infrastructure connection. Suga does not show, but Yee shows even if the P2P connection with a second information processing apparatus is disconnected when the information processing apparatus establishes the infrastructure connection (e.g., figure 2, additional wireless clients to connect to). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method of Suga with Yee because it would allow wireless clients to communicate with additional wireless clients.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Follansbee whose telephone number is 571-272-3964. 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, Amy Johnson can be reached on 571-272-2238. 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.
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights