DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 9/6/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 19-20 recite “at at least a predetermined time” (see claim 1 line 17). Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
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.
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: “an attempting unit” and “a transmission unit” in claim 19.
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 § 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 1, 4-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani (US 20230161608 A1) in view of and Kobashi (US 2013/0263279) and Tanaka (US 20150039997 A1).
As to independent claim 1, Mizutani teaches a method for controlling an information processing apparatus having a predetermined application program, the method comprising:
in a case that the information processing apparatus receives a dragging operation of dragging a file icon included in a screen displayed by another application program different from the predetermined application program and a dropping operation of dropping the dragged file icon on an application assumed that the JPEG image file “Image A1” displayed in the first application 208 is dragged and dropped into the file acceptance area 401. The content information includes a URI indicating a location where the file delivered to the file acceptance area 401 is stored. The second application 209 can obtain the file “Image A1” delivered to the file acceptance area 401 by accessing the URI included in the received content information” paragraph 0048); and
in a case that the acquisition of the predetermined file by the predetermined application program is completed, transmitting, by the predetermined application program, a print job for causing a printing apparatus to print an image based on the predetermined file (“In a case where it is determined in S503 that the file has been received in the file acceptance area 401, the second application 209 executes a step S504.” Paragraph 0048), wherein
Mizutani does not appear to expressly teach a dropping operation of dropping the dragged file icon on an application icon associated with the predetermined application program
in a case where the predetermined file is present on the Internet, the predetermined application program attempts to acquire the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region at at least a predetermined time
the predetermined time is after the predetermined file downloaded to the information processing apparatus via the Internet is completely stored in the predetermined storage region.
Kobashi teaches a dropping operation of dropping the dragged file icon on an application icon associated with the predetermined application program (“The main control unit 3022 stores a file path of a document file 402 to be managed by the OS 301 in the storage unit 3023 when the document file 402 is dragged and dropped onto the widget 401 using a mouse pointer 403 to be operated by a pointing device or the like.” Paragraph 0055).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mizutani to comprise a dropping operation of dropping the dragged file icon on an application icon associated with the predetermined application program. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve print processing.
Tanaka teaches in a case where the predetermined file is present on the Internet, the predetermined application program attempts to acquire the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region at at least a predetermined time (“downloads a content of the dropped file from the document management server PC 10 to the drop destination folder.” Paragraph 0038 this implies that attempts to acquire the content for a predetermined time before downloading…), and
the predetermined time is after the predetermined file downloaded to the information processing apparatus via the Internet is completely stored in the predetermined storage region (“The second extension program causes the computer to function as a monitoring unit configured to receive the information of the content written in the bridge data storage unit, generate a drag object including the received content information, and monitor whether the drag object has been dropped outside the web browser, and a downloading unit configured to, when the drag object is dropped outside the web browser, execute download processing by instructing the document management server to transmit a corresponding content by using the information of the content included in the drag object.” Paragraph 0009).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mizutani to comprise the predetermined time is after the predetermined file downloaded to the information processing apparatus via the Internet is completely stored in the predetermined storage region. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve print processing.
As to dependent claim 4, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 1, Mizutani further teaches the method further comprising
in a case that the acquisition of the predetermined file by the predetermined application program is completed, displaying a preview screen on which an image based on the predetermined file is displayed (Print preview 406 for printing the received filed “Image A1” displayed in Fig. 4B), wherein
the print job is transmitted after the preview screen is displayed (“displays the file as the print preview image 404 of the print preview screen 407. This makes it possible to display a screen for print setting or print execution for the file received from the first application 208, which is the other application, in response to reception of the file in the file acceptance area 401.” Paragraph 0049).
As to dependent claim 5, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 4, Mizutani further teaches wherein
in a case that the received dropping operation is an operation of dropping a plurality of file icons on the application icon associated with the predetermined application program, the preview screen for previewing only an image based on any one of a plurality of files associated with the plurality of file icons is displayed (“an example of delivering the image file to the file acceptance area has been described. However, the file to be shared is not limited to an image file. In the above example, in S504 in FIG. 5, the second application 209 displays the print preview screen 407 of the image file. However, the print preview screen 407 may display a screen different from the print preview screen 407 in accordance with the format of the received file. For example, in a case where a document file such as a PDF document file is received instead of an image file, a preview screen of the document file may be displayed. That is, a screen depending on the type of a file may be displayed. FIG. 6 is a diagram showing an example of a document preview screen 601 to be displayed in a case where the second application 209 receives a document file B1 in a PDF format. The document preview screen 601 includes a document preview image 602,” paragraph 0055-0056).
As to dependent claim 6, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 5, Mizutani further teaches wherein any one of the files is a first file among the plurality of files associated with the plurality of file icons (icons for image file A1, PDF file B1).
As to dependent claim 7, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 4, Mizutani further teaches wherein in a case that the received dropping operation is an operation of dropping a plurality of file icons on the application icon associated with the predetermined application program, the preview screen for previewing a plurality of images based on a plurality of files associated with the plurality of file icons is displayed (“an example of delivering the image file to the file acceptance area has been described. However, the file to be shared is not limited to an image file. In the above example, in S504 in FIG. 5, the second application 209 displays the print preview screen 407 of the image file. However, the print preview screen 407 may display a screen different from the print preview screen 407 in accordance with the format of the received file. For example, in a case where a document file such as a PDF document file is received instead of an image file, a preview screen of the document file may be displayed. That is, a screen depending on the type of a file may be displayed.” Paragraph 0055).
As to dependent claim 8, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 4, Mizutani further teaches wherein
in a case that the received dropping operation is an operation of dropping a plurality of file icons on the application icon associated with the predetermined application program, and a first file among a plurality of files associated with the plurality of file icons is in a predetermined file format, the preview screen for previewing only an image based on the first file is displayed (“the second application 209 obtains the file “Image A1” from the storage device 206 using the URI included in the content information received in S503 and displays the file as the print preview image 404 of the print preview screen 407.” Paragraph 0049), and
in a case that the received dropping operation is the operation of dropping the plurality of file icons on the application icon associated with the predetermined application program, and the first file is in a file format different from the predetermined file format, the preview screen for previewing only one or more images based on one or more files in the file format different from the predetermined file format among a plurality of files associated with the plurality of file icons is displayed (“The document preview image 602 is an area for displaying the contents of the document file B1 received by the second application 209. Specifically, the second application 209 obtains a PDF file from the OS 207 using the URI included in the received content information. The second application 209 renders the obtained PDF file and displays the file as the document preview image 602.” Paragraph 0057).
As to dependent claim 9, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 8, Mizutani further teaches wherein the predetermined file format is a PDF format (PDF format document B1 in Fig 6).
As to dependent claim 10, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 1, wherein
in a case that the dropping operation is an operation of dropping a file icon in a first file format on the application icon associated with the predetermined application program, the predetermined application program executes the acquisition of the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region (“The second application 209 can obtain the file “Image A1” delivered to the file acceptance area 401 by accessing the URI included in the received content information.” Paragraph 0048), and
in a case that the dropping operation is an operation of dropping a file icon in a second file format different from the first file format on the application icon associated with the predetermined application program, the predetermined application program does not execute the acquisition of the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region (In the case of detecting the reception of a file into the file acceptance area in S703, a step S704 is performed. In S704, the second application 209 determines whether the received file can be handled by the second application. Specifically, the second application 209 determines whether an extension of the file obtained in S703 corresponds to an extension in corresponding extension information held by the second application 209 in advance.” Paragraph 0062).
As to dependent claim 11, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 10, Mizutani further taches wherein the first file format is at least one of a PDF format, a JPEG format, a HEIF format, and a PNG format (“The corresponding extension information specifically includes a character string such as JPEG, PNG, or PDF.” Paragraph 0062).
As to dependent claim 12, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 1, Mizutgani does not appear to expressly teach wherein
an operating system of the information processing apparatus executes, based on the reception of the dropping operation, processing of sharing the predetermined file with the predetermined application program by a predetermined method, and
the predetermined method is scene (_:openURLContexts:) defined in a UISceneDelegate protocol.
Kobashi teaches “A predetermined operating system (OS) is installed into the information processing apparatus 101, and various types of applications for each executing specific functional processing is also installed thereinto. The specific functional processing includes document processing, spreadsheet processing, presentation processing, image processing, and graphics processing. Each of the applications has its own data structure (file structure). Further, the OS is configured to be capable of referring to an identifier of each of files, to issue a print instruction to the corresponding application.” Paragraph 0034. “FIG. 4 illustrates a file drop operation onto the widget 401 to be started by the virtual printer application 302 and an example of the widget 401. The widget 401 is displayed on a desktop of the OS 301. The virtual printer application 302 associates the printer objects, which have been installed into the OS 301, with the widget 401, and displays the widget 401 for each of the associated printer objects. The main control unit 3022 stores a file path of a document file 402 to be managed by the OS 301 in the storage unit 3023 when the document file 402 is dragged and dropped onto the widget 401 using a mouse pointer 403 to be operated by a pointing device or the like.” Paragraph 0055, 0064-0065.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mizutani to comprise wherein an operating system of the information processing apparatus executes, based on the reception of the dropping operation, processing of sharing the predetermined file with the predetermined application program by a predetermined method, and the predetermined method is scene (_:openURLContexts:) defined in a UISceneDelegate protocol. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve print processing.
As to dependent claim 13, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 12, Mizutani does not appear to expressly teach wherein
in a case where the predetermined application program is being activated when the dropping operation is received, the predetermined method is scene (_:openURLContexts:) defined in the UISceneDelegate protocol, and
in a case where the predetermined application program is not being activated when the dropping operation is received, the predetermined method is scene (_:willConnectTo:options) defined in the UISceneDelegate protocol.
Kobashi teaches “A predetermined operating system (OS) is installed into the information processing apparatus 101, and various types of applications for each executing specific functional processing is also installed thereinto. The specific functional processing includes document processing, spreadsheet processing, presentation processing, image processing, and graphics processing. Each of the applications has its own data structure (file structure). Further, the OS is configured to be capable of referring to an identifier of each of files, to issue a print instruction to the corresponding application.” Paragraph 0034. “FIG. 4 illustrates a file drop operation onto the widget 401 to be started by the virtual printer application 302 and an example of the widget 401. The widget 401 is displayed on a desktop of the OS 301. The virtual printer application 302 associates the printer objects, which have been installed into the OS 301, with the widget 401, and displays the widget 401 for each of the associated printer objects. The main control unit 3022 stores a file path of a document file 402 to be managed by the OS 301 in the storage unit 3023 when the document file 402 is dragged and dropped onto the widget 401 using a mouse pointer 403 to be operated by a pointing device or the like.” Paragraph 0055, 0064-0065.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mizutani to comprise wherein in a case where the predetermined application program is being activated when the dropping operation is received, the predetermined method is scene (_:openURLContexts:) defined in the UISceneDelegate protocol, and in a case where the predetermined application program is not being activated when the dropping operation is received, the predetermined method is scene (_:willConnectTo:options) defined in the UISceneDelegate protocol. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve print processing.
As to dependent claim 17, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 1, Mizutani further teaches wherein
an operating system of the information processing apparatus is at least one of iOS (registered trademark) 17, iPadOS (registered trademark) 17, and iOS (registered trademark) of a version later than iOS (registered trademark) 17 (Operating System (OS) 207).
As to dependent claim 18, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 1, Mizutani further teaches wherein
in a case that the dropping operation is received, acquiring a file path indicating the predetermined storage region from an operating system of the information processing apparatus (“the second application 209 obtains a PDF file from the OS 207 using the URI included in the received content information.” Paragraph 0057), wherein
the acquisition of the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region is executed based on the file path (‘The second application 209 renders the obtained PDF file and displays the file as the document preview image 602.” Paragraph 0057).
Claims 19-20 are substantially the same as claim 1 and are therefore rejected under similar rationale as above.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani in view of Kobashi, Tanaka and Nakayama et al. (US 20040117461 A1, hereinafter Nakayama).
As to dependent claim 2, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 1, Mizutani does not appear to expressly teach wherein
in a case that the predetermined file is present on the Internet, and the predetermined application program attempts to acquire the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region in a state in which the predetermined file downloaded to the information processing apparatus via the Internet is not completely stored in the predetermined storage region, the predetermined application program re-executes the acquisition of the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region.
Nakayam teaches wherein in a case that the predetermined file is present on the Internet, and the predetermined application program attempts to acquire the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region in a state in which the predetermined file downloaded to the information processing apparatus via the Internet is not completely stored in the predetermined storage region, the predetermined application program re-executes the acquisition of the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region (“When the reproducing device 130 is or has been disconnected from the downloading device 110, control returns to S102. In this case, the downloading device 110 has not yet notified the contents server 210 of the successful completion of transmission of the audio data files to the reproducing device (i.e., S111 has not been called), the downloading operation is re-executed.” Paragraph 0067).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mizutani to wherein in a case that the predetermined file is present on the Internet, and the predetermined application program attempts to acquire the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region in a state in which the predetermined file downloaded to the information processing apparatus via the Internet is not completely stored in the predetermined storage region, the predetermined application program re-executes the acquisition of the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve print processing.
As to dependent claim 3, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 1, Mizutani does not appear to expressly teach wherein
in a case that the predetermined file is present on the Internet, and the predetermined application program attempts to acquire the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region in a state in which the predetermined file downloaded to the information processing apparatus via the Internet is not completely stored in the predetermined storage region, the predetermined application program repeatedly attempts to acquire the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region until the predetermined file downloaded to the information processing apparatus via the Internet is completely stored in the predetermined storage region.
Nakayam teaches in a case that the predetermined file is present on the Internet, and the predetermined application program attempts to acquire the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region in a state in which the predetermined file downloaded to the information processing apparatus via the Internet is not completely stored in the predetermined storage region, the predetermined application program repeatedly attempts to acquire the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region until the predetermined file downloaded to the information processing apparatus via the Internet is completely stored in the predetermined storage region (“When the reproducing device 130 is or has been disconnected from the downloading device 110, control returns to S102. In this case, the downloading device 110 has not yet notified the contents server 210 of the successful completion of transmission of the audio data files to the reproducing device (i.e., S111 has not been called), the downloading operation is re-executed.” Paragraph 0067).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mizutani to comprise in a case that the predetermined file is present on the Internet, and the predetermined application program attempts to acquire the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region in a state in which the predetermined file downloaded to the information processing apparatus via the Internet is not completely stored in the predetermined storage region, the predetermined application program repeatedly attempts to acquire the predetermined file from the predetermined storage region until the predetermined file downloaded to the information processing apparatus via the Internet is completely stored in the predetermined storage region. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve print processing.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani in view of Kobashi, Tanaka and Otaka (US 20210392483 A1).
As to dependent claim 14, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 1, Mizutani does not appear to expressly teach the method comprising
in a case that the dropping operation is received, determining whether a communication apparatus has been registered in the predetermined application program, wherein
based on the determination that the communication apparatus has not been registered in the predetermined application program, processing of registering the communication apparatus in the predetermined application program is executed before the print job is transmitted, and
based on the determination that the communication apparatus has been registered in the predetermined application program, processing different from the registration processing is executed.
Otaka teaches determining whether a communication apparatus has been registered in the predetermined application program (“FIG. 6 illustrates an example of a screen to be displayed by the application A 109. An icon 601 indicates a printer registered in the application A 109. The registration of a printer will be described below. In a state in which no printer is registered in the application A 109, the icon 601 is not displayed.” Paragraph 0032), wherein
based on the determination that the communication apparatus has not been registered in the predetermined application program, processing of registering the communication apparatus in the predetermined application program is executed before the print job is transmitted (“a region including a message or an icon for prompting the registration of a printer may be displayed in place of the icon 601.” Paragraph 0032), and
based on the determination that the communication apparatus has been registered in the predetermined application program, processing different from the registration processing is executed (“Icons 602 and 603 are buttons for transmitting a print job to the printer registered in the application A 109 and causing the printer to print a photo or a document stored in the mobile terminal 100.” Paragraph 0032).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mizutani to comprise in a case that the dropping operation is received, determining whether a communication apparatus has been registered in the predetermined application program, wherein based on the determination that the communication apparatus has not been registered in the predetermined application program, processing of registering the communication apparatus in the predetermined application program is executed before the print job is transmitted, and based on the determination that the communication apparatus has been registered in the predetermined application program, processing different from the registration processing is executed. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve print processing.
As to dependent claim 15, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 14, Mizutani does not appear to expressly teach wherein
the processing different from the registration processing is processing of displaying a preview screen on which the image based on the predetermined file is displayed after the acquisition of the predetermined file by the predetermined application program is completed.
Otaka teaches the processing different from the registration processing is processing of displaying a preview screen on which the image based on the predetermined file is displayed after the acquisition of the predetermined file by the predetermined application program is completed (“Icons 602 and 603 are buttons for transmitting a print job to the printer registered in the application A 109 and causing the printer to print a photo or a document stored in the mobile terminal 100. An icon 604 is a button for transmitting a scan job to the printer registered in the application A 109 and causing the printer to execute scanning. An icon 605 is a button for executing a cloud print function of causing the printer to print image data stored in an external server.” Paragraph 0032).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mizutani to comprise the processing different from the registration processing is processing of displaying a preview screen on which the image based on the predetermined file is displayed after the acquisition of the predetermined file by the predetermined application program is completed. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve print processing.
As to dependent claim 16, Mizutani teaches the control method according to claim 15, Mizutani does not appear to expressly teach the method further comprising
confirming with a user whether to execute the registration processing, based on the determination that the communication apparatus has not been registered in the predetermined application program, wherein
in a case that it is confirmed that the registration processing is to be executed, the registration processing is executed,
in a case that it is not confirmed that the registration processing is to be executed, the processing different from the registration processing is executed.
Otaka teaches confirming with a user whether to execute the registration processing, based on the determination that the communication apparatus has not been registered in the predetermined application program (“a region including a message or an icon for prompting the registration of a printer may be displayed in place of the icon 601.” Paragraph 0032), wherein
in a case that it is confirmed that the registration processing is to be executed, the registration processing is executed (“An icon 610 is a button for cooperatively activating the application C 111. If the CPU 101 receives an operation on the icon 610 in a state in which the application C 111 is installed on the mobile terminal 100, the CPU 101 cooperatively activates the application C 111” paragraph 0032),
in a case that it is not confirmed that the registration processing is to be executed, the processing different from the registration processing is executed (“If a printer not supporting the application C 111 is registered in the application A 109, for example, the CPU 101 may avoid receiving an operation on the icon 610 by bringing the icon 610 into a grayout state or hiding the icon 610.” Paragraph 0032).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mizutani to comprise confirming with a user whether to execute the registration processing, based on the determination that the communication apparatus has not been registered in the predetermined application program, wherein in a case that it is confirmed that the registration processing is to be executed, the registration processing is executed, in a case that it is not confirmed that the registration processing is to be executed, the processing different from the registration processing is executed. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve print processing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Iida et al. US 20190369930 A1 teaches a file input operation is implemented by dragging and dropping the file to the web browser. The operation unit which has detected the print file input operation transmits the print file and folder path information (storage destination information and folder specification information) to the web server.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHELET SHIBEROU whose telephone number is (571)270-7493. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/MAHELET SHIBEROU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights