DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. 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 § 103
2. 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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US Pub: 2021/0165619) and in further view of Siahaan et al (US Pub: 2006/0015316) and Lee et al (US Pub: 2013/0227565).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored a predetermined program operatable on an operating system (OS), which when executed by one or more processors of a first information processing apparatus having a first operating environment on a first OS operating as a host OS but not on a guest OS, cause the first information processing apparatus to perform a first method [p0026, p0027], the first method comprising: displaying one or more printers performed by the first information processing apparatus [p0042]; accepting a selection of any printer among the one or more printers [p0043]; and when the printer selected from the one or more printers is a printer not supported by the predetermined program, performing processing related to another program different from the predetermined program [p0035, p0039]; displaying one or more printers discovered through a search performed by the first information processing apparatus [p0038, p0039];
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose a host OS containing a guest OS. In the same field of endeavor Siahaan et al teach: and wherein the predetermined program, which when executed by one or more processors of a second information processing apparatus having a second operating environment on a second OS operating as the host OS and on the guest OS [p0023], cause the second information processing apparatus to perform a second method [p0043]. And Takahashi further teaches: the second method comprising: displaying one or more printers discovered through a search performed by the second information processing apparatus [Takahashi: p0038, p0039]; accepting a selection of any printer among the one or more printers [Takahashi: p0043]; and when the printer selected from the one or more printers is a printer not supported by the predetermined program [Takahashi: p0035, p0039], performing processing related to a printing program standard in the host OS [Siahaan: p0029, p0041-p0043], the printing program being different from the predetermined program and the other program [Takahashi: fig. 1 (02, 03, and 08); Siahaan: fig. 3 (315 vs. 335)].
Takahashi teaches a separate print conversion utility when a selected printer is unsupported by printing function. Siahaan et al passes guest side print job to host when printing occurs from a guest OS. Therefore, given Siahaan’s teaching on using host printing by avoiding providing printer support within guest OS, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takahashi’s unsupported printer situation to use Siahaan’s host side printing method when operating in a virtualized guest OS to allow printing supported by host to avoid unnecessary configuration for improving efficiency.
For a redundant teaching in the same field of endeavor, Lee et al teaches host and guest environment and selects different application processing paths associated with a host OS or a guest OS [p0067, figs. 5]. Therefore, applying Lee et al’s launching technique to Takahashi’s print conversion utility to automatically enable accessing separate program for unsupported printer would have been obvious to skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Lee et al further teaches: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein processing for launching the other program is performed as the processing related to the other program [fig. 6: 501-507].
Regarding claim 4, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi further teaches: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the other program is a program capable of sending a print job to a printer not supported by the predetermined program [p0035].
Regarding claim 6, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi further teaches: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein processing for notifying a user to use the printing program standard in the host OS is performed as the processing related to the printing program standard in the host OS [p0049].
Regarding claim 7, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi further teaches: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein when the printer selected from the one or more printers is a printer supported by the predetermined program, the predetermined program causes each of the first information processing apparatus and the second information processing apparatus to perform processing for registering the printer supported by the predetermined program in the predetermined program [p0044].
Regarding claim 8, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi further teaches: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the printer supported by the predetermined program is an ink jet printer [p0030].
Regarding claim 9, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi further teaches: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the printer supported by the predetermined program is one of models of an electrophotographic printer [p0030].
Regarding claim 18, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi further teaches: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, the first method and the second method further comprises transmitting a print job for causing the printer selected from the one or more printers to print when the printer selected from the one or more printers is a printer supported by the predetermined program [p0030, p0044].
Claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1.
4. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US Pub: 2021/0165619), Siahaan et al (US Pub: 2006/0015316), and Lee et al (US Pub: 2013/0227565); and in further view of Ayers et al (US Pub: 2019/0265958).
Regarding claim 3, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi in view of Siahaan et al does not launch a store app. In the same field of endeavor, Ayers et al teaches: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein processing for launching a store app for installing the other program is performed as the processing related to the other program in a case where the other program is not installed in the first information processing apparatus [p0141-p0143]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to launch a store app for program installation for convenience.
5. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US Pub: 2021/0165619), Siahaan et al (US Pub: 2006/0015316), and Lee et al (US Pub: 2013/0227565) and in further view of Suzuki et al (US Pub: 2021/0117135).
Regarding claim 5, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi states print conversion utility to enable printing in p0035. In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the other program is a program provided by a vendor that provides the predetermined program [p0005]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to have use same vendor to provide both printer driver and separate application for additional printer functionality for convenience.
6. Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US Pub: 2021/0165619), Siahaan et al (US Pub: 2006/0015316), and Lee et al (US Pub: 2013/0227565); and in further view of Nagasawa (US Pub: 2018/0063364).
Regarding claim 10, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi in view of Siahaan et al and Lee et al does not prescribe different search strategy. In the same field of endeavor, Nagasawa teaches: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the search performed by the first information processing apparatus and the search performed by the second information processing apparatus are different [figs. 3 and 12 (Broadcast and unicast)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to apply both broadcast and unicast search techniques to allocate printers not reachable by only one strategy for improving accuracy.
Regarding claim 19, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi teaches an application program generally. In the same field of endeavor, Nagasawa further teaches: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined program is an application program [fig. 3: 30]. Therefore, implementing a search function by an application program would have been an obvious option to a skilled in the art rather than built directly for flexibility.
7. Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US Pub: 2021/0165619), Siahaan et al (US Pub: 2006/0015316), and Lee et al (US Pub: 2013/0227565); and in further view of Nagasawa (US Pub: 2018/0063364) and Moyer et al (US Pub: 2018/0373474).
Regarding claim 11, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi in view of Siahaan et al and Lee et al does not disclose broadcast using a socket API. In the same field of endeavor, Nagasawa and Moyer et al teach: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the search performed by the first information processing apparatus includes a search through a broadcast performed using a socket application programming interface (API) [Nagasawa: abstract, figs. 3, 6A, and 12; Moyer: p0044]. Nagasawa teaches transmitting a broadcast search over a wireless LAN to discover printers. Moyer uses a socket based network interface for data transmission over an IP network. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to implement broadcast printer search packet through socket API so that the application transmits network data through operating system for printer discovery and communication.
Regarding claim 14, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi in view of Siahaan et al and Lee et al does not disclose unicast search using socket API. In the same field of endeavor, Nagasawa and Moyer et al teach: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the search performed by the second information processing apparatus includes a search through a unicast performed using a socket API [Nagasawa: abstract, figs. 3, 6A, and 12; Moyer: p0044]. Nagasawa teaches transmitting unicast search over a wireless LAN to a specific IP. Moyer uses a socket based network interface for data transmission over an IP network. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to implement Nagasawa’s unicast printer search packet through socket API so that the application transmits network data through operating system to a specific IP address for printer communication.
8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US Pub: 2021/0165619), Siahaan et al (US Pub: 2006/0015316), and Lee et al (US Pub: 2013/0227565); and in further view of Lee (US Patent: 9,521,271).
Regarding claim 12, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi in view of Siahaan et al and Lee et al does not disclose Wi-Fi direct for search. In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the search performed by the first information processing apparatus includes a search performed using Wi-Fi Direct [fig. 9]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to search printer using Wi-Fi direct for direct communication between devices.
9. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US Pub: 2021/0165619), Siahaan et al (US Pub: 2006/0015316), and Lee et al (US Pub: 2013/0227565); and in further view of Machikoppa et al (US Pub: 2021/0392192).
Regarding claim 13, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi in view of Siahaan et al and Lee et al does not disclose printer search using NSD protocol. In the same field of endeavor, Machikoppa et al teaches: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the search performed by the second information processing apparatus includes a search through a multicast performed using a network service discovery (NSD) protocol [p0009]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to use NSD via mDNS to send multicast query for printer service discovery.
10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US Pub: 2021/0165619), Siahaan et al (US Pub: 2006/0015316), and Lee et al (US Pub: 2013/0227565); and in further view of Odagawa (US Pub: 2010/0309515).
Regarding claim 15, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi in view of Siahaan et al and Lee et al does not display ink jet printers or electrophotographic printers. In the same field of endeavor, Odagawa teaches: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the one or more printers are displayed to be distinguishable as ink jet printers or electrophotographic printers [figs. 4, 8]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to display printer type information per design choice.
11. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US Pub: 2021/0165619), Siahaan et al (US Pub: 2006/0015316), and Lee et al (US Pub: 2013/0227565); and in further view of Shaposhnik et al (US Pub: 2018/0060588) and Intel (12th Generation Intel® Core™ Processors Run Android* 11 in a Virtual Machine, 2/15/2022).
Regarding claim 16, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi in view of Siahaan et al and Lee et al does not indicate specific OS. In the same field of endeavor, Shaposhnik et al and Intel teach: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the host OS of the first operating environment is an Android OS, the host OS of the second operating environment is a Chrome OS, and the guest OS of the second operating environment is a virtual Android OS [Shaposhnik: p0034, p0035; Intel: Architecture]. Therefore, given Shaposhnik et al’s teaching on environment with a host OS and a guest OS executing on virtual machine within host environment and Intel’s selection of Chrome as host OS and Android as virtual guest OS, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to enable Android applications to run on Chrome OS with compatibility.
12. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US Pub: 2021/0165619), Siahaan et al (US Pub: 2006/0015316), and Lee et al (US Pub: 2013/0227565); and in further view of Magenheimer (US Pub: 2005/0188374).
Regarding claim 17, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Takahashi in view of Siahaan disclose printer processing alternatives such as print conversion utility and virtual component on host. In the same field of endeavor, Magenheimer teaches: The computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the first method and the second method further comprises determining whether an environment in which the predetermined program is operating is the first operating environment, and when the printer selected from the one or more printers is a printer not supported by the predetermined program, whether to execute the processing related to the other program or execute the processing related to the printing program standard in the host OS is controlled based on a result of the determination [figs. 2 and 3]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to decide whether the system is operating in a native or virtual environment and select a process path accordingly for optimal result.
Contact
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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 Tieu can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights