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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 1 recites the step of display and select files and determining file format. This limitation recites concepts that fall into the "mathematical concept" and/or "mental process" groups of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: Claims 1 and 20 does not recite any additional elements beyond the judicial exception. Claims 1 and 20 recites " in a case where the data format of the file selected on the second file selection screen is the predetermined data format, executing processing based on a file selected on the second file selection screen", but this limitation does not limit the claim. Instead, it appears to indicate an intended use for the claimed method. As such, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Since claim 1 does not recite any additional elements beyond the judicial exception as noted above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, then likewise the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception.
Dependent claims 11-19 do not cure the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 12 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayami (US 20100293619) in view of Ichiba (US 20230030882)
Regarding claim 20, Hayami teaches A method of controlling a first information processing apparatus having a predetermined program runnable on an operating system (OS) and having a first operating environment on a first OS running as a host OS but not on a guest OS (fig. 2B: application 106 running on Host OS, not guest OS), and a second information processing apparatus having the predetermined program and having a second operating environment on a second OS running as the host OS and on the guest OS (application running on Guest OS and Host OS and p0051:application 106 can run on the virtual hardware 104. An OS same as the host OS or a different OS can be used as a guest OS of the OS 105), the method comprising:
Hayami does not teach executing, by the predetermined program in the first information processing apparatus, processing for causing a first file management program corresponding to the first OS to display a first file selection screen; executing, by the predetermined program in the first information processing apparatus, predetermined processing based on a file selected on the first file selection screen; executing, by the predetermined program in the second information processing apparatus, processing for causing a second file management program corresponding to the second OS to display a second file selection screen; in a case where a data format of a file selected on the second file selection screen is not a predetermined data format, executing, by the predetermined program in the second information processing apparatus, predetermined notification processing that is notification processing based on a fact that the data format of the file selected on the second file selection screen is not the predetermined data format, and is notification processing of displaying a notification screen representing that which data format is the predetermined data format; and in a case where the data format of the file selected on the second file selection screen is the predetermined data format, executing, by the predetermined program in the second information processing apparatus, processing based on a file selected on the second file selection screen.
Ichiba executing, by the predetermined program in the first information processing apparatus, processing for causing a first file management program corresponding to the first OS to display a first file selection screen (fig. 5);
executing, by the predetermined program in the first information processing apparatus, predetermined processing based on a file selected on the first file selection screen (fig. 4: file 1 and Home printer 1); executing, by the predetermined program in the second information processing apparatus, processing for causing a second file management program corresponding to the second OS to display a second file selection screen (fig. 5); in a case where a data format of a file selected on the second file selection screen is not a predetermined data format, executing, by the predetermined program in the second information processing apparatus (fig., 5: file 2 and file 3), predetermined notification processing that is notification processing based on a fact that the data format of the file selected on the second file selection screen is not the predetermined data format, and is notification processing of displaying a notification screen representing that which data format is the predetermined data format (fig. 5: 40 and 41); and in a case where the data format of the file selected on the second file selection screen is the predetermined data format, executing, by the predetermined program in the second information processing apparatus, processing based on a file selected on the second file selection screen (fig. 5: file 1).
Hayami and Ichiba are combinable because they both deal with printing files with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hayami with the teaching of Ichiba for purpose of selecting printable files for the selected printer.
Claim 1 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 20 and in accordance with Ichiba’s further teaching on: A computer-readable memory that contains instructions, which when executed by a processor perform steps in a method (p0024).
Regarding claim 19, Hayami teaches the medium according to claim 1, wherein the program is an application program (fig. 2B: application 106 running on Host OS, not guest OS).
Regarding claim 2, Hayami in view of Ichiba teaches the medium according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises designating the predetermined data format in the processing for causing the first file management program to display the first file selection screen in the executing processing for causing the first file management program corresponding to the first OS to display the first file selection screen, and in the executing processing for causing the first file management program corresponding to the first OS to display the first file selection screen, a file of a data format other than the predetermined data format is displayed not to be selectable on the first file selection screen (Ichiba: fig. 5: p0050: In this case, if Home Printer 2 is unable to print File 2 according to the print attributes, and Home Printer 2 and Home Printer 3 are unable to print File 3 according to the print attributes, the alert 39 is displayed in association with Home Printer 2 and Home Printer 3. Thereafter, if the user selects the alert 39 corresponding to Home Printer 2, the reason why File 2 is not printable according to the print attributes and the reason why File 3 is not printable according to the print attributes are displayed).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 3, Hayami in view of Ichiba teaches the medium according to claim 2, wherein in the executing processing for causing the second file management program corresponding to the second OS to display the second file selection screen, even a file of a data format other than the predetermined data format is displayed to be selectable on the second file selection screen (Ichiba: fig. 5).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Hayami in view of Ichiba teaches the medium according to claim 1, wherein the notification screen includes an area for executing again the processing for causing the second file management program to display the second file selection screen (Ichiba: fig. 5).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Hayami in view of Ichiba teaches the medium according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined data format is a data format corresponding to a first function of the program, and the predetermined notification processing includes processing of, in a case where the file selected on the second file selection screen has not the predetermined data format but a data format corresponding to a second function of the program, displaying a screen including an interface capable of executing the second function (Ichiba: fig. 5).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 12, Hayami in view of Ichiba teaches the medium according to claim 1, wherein in the second operating environment, whether the data format of the file selected on the second file selection screen is the predetermined data format is determined (Ichiba: when printer is select, file display), and in the first operating environment, whether the data format of the file selected on the first file selection screen is the predetermined data format is not determined (ichiba: when printer is not selected, all the files are display without marks).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 17, Hayami in view of Ichiba teaches the medium according to claim 16, wherein the notification screen displayed in a case where a data format of a file selected on the second file selection screen displayed in the case where the operation for executing the first function is accepted in the first area is not the predetermined data format, and the notification screen displayed in a case where a data format of a file selected on the second file selection screen displayed in the case where the operation for executing the second function is accepted in the second area is not the predetermined data format are different (Ichiba:fig. 5).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 4, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayami in view of Ichiba as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Subramaniamet al. (US 10853001).
Regarding claim 4, Hayami in view of Ichiba does not explicitly teaches the medium according to claim 3, wherein the method further comprises designating the predetermined data format in the processing for causing the second file management program to display the second file selection screen in the executing processing for causing the second file management program corresponding to the second OS to display the second file selection screen, in the executing processing for causing the second file management program corresponding to the second OS to display the second file selection screen, only a file of at least one data format out of the designated predetermined data format is displayed based on execution of the processing, and in a case where a predetermined operation is performed on the second file selection screen, a file of a data format other than the predetermined data format is displayed to be selectable on the second file selection screen.
Subramaniamet teaches wherein the method further comprises designating the predetermined data format in the processing for causing the second file management program to display the second file selection screen in the executing processing for causing the second file management program corresponding to the second OS to display the second file selection screen, in the executing processing for causing the second file management program corresponding to the second OS to display the second file selection screen (fig. 3: 301 file list), only a file of at least one data format out of the designated predetermined data format is displayed based on execution of the processing, and in a case where a predetermined operation is performed on the second file selection screen, a file of a data format other than the predetermined data format is displayed to be selectable on the second file selection screen (fig. 3: 304 and 306: select by file type).
Hayami in view of Ichiba and Subramaniamet are combinable because they both deal with printing files with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hayami in view of Ichiba with the teaching of Subramaniamet for purpose of reduce manual effort and time of the user.
Regarding claim 8, Hayami in view of Ichiba and Subramaniamet teaches the medium according to claim 6, wherein the data format corresponding to the second function includes at least one of a data format corresponding to Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG), a data format corresponding to Graphics Interchange Format (GIF), a data format corresponding to Portable Network Graphics (PNG), and a data format corresponding to Microsoft Windows Bitmap Image (BMP) (Subramaniamet: col. 3, lines 39:40: “file” represents any document in a suitable format such as, PDF, word document, excel sheet, image).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 15, Hayami in view of Ichiba and Subramaniamet teaches the medium according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined data format includes at least one of a data format corresponding to Portable Document Format (PDF), a data format corresponding to Microsoft Word, a data format corresponding to Microsoft Excel, and a data format corresponding to Microsoft PowerPoint(Subramaniamet: col. 3, lines 39:40: “file” represents any document in a suitable format such as, PDF, word document, excel sheet, image).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 7, 9-11, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayami in view of Ichiba as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Tao al. (US 20230205403).
Regarding claim 9, Hayami in view of Ichiba does not teach the medium according to claim 6, wherein the first function is a function for printing a document file, and the second function is a function for printing an image file.
Tao teaches wherein the first function is a function for printing a document file, and the second function is a function for printing an image file (fig. 9c: photos and files printing).
Hayami in view of Ichiba and Tao are combinable because they both deal with printing files with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hayami in view of Ichiba with the teaching of Tao for purpose of ser can print the picture or the document in the portable electronic device such as a smartphone without using a data cable to connect the portable electronic device such as the smartphone to a printer (p0003).
Regarding claim 7, Hayami in view of Ichiba and Tao teaches the medium according to claim 6, wherein in a case where the interface capable of executing the second function is operated, a preview screen for printing by the second function the file selected on the second file selection screen is displayed (Tao: fig. 9H: printing preview).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 9 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 10, Hayami in view of Ichiba and Tao teaches the medium according to claim 1, wherein the processing based on the file selected on the first file selection screen is processing of displaying a preview screen for printing the file selected on the first file selection screen, and the processing based on the file selected on the second file selection screen is processing of displaying a preview screen for printing the file selected on the second file selection screen (Tao: fig. 9H, preview and start printing).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 9 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 11, Hayami in view of Ichiba teaches the medium according to claim 10, wherein the processing based on the file selected on the first file selection screen is processing of transmitting, to a printing apparatus, a print job for causing the printing apparatus to print the file selected on the first file selection screen (Ichiba:fig. 5), and the processing based on the file selected on the second file selection screen is processing of transmitting, to the printing apparatus, a print job for causing the printing apparatus to print the file selected on the second file selection screen (Ichiba: fig. 5).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 9 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 16, Hayami in view of Ichiba and Tao teaches the medium according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises causing the computer of the second information processing apparatus to further execute displaying a first area where an operation for executing a first function for printing a document file is accepted, and a second area where an operation for executing a second function for printing an image file is accepted, in a case where the operation for executing the first function is accepted in the first area and in a case where the operation for executing the second function is accepted in the second area, the processing for causing the second file management program to display the second file selection screen is executed, in a case where the operation for executing the first function is accepted in the first area, the predetermined data format is a data format corresponding to the first function, in a case where the operation for executing the second function is accepted in the second area, the predetermined data format is a data format corresponding to the second function, and the data format corresponding to the first function and the data format corresponding to the second function are different (tao: fig. 9c: document and picture printing).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 9 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18, Hayami in view of Ichiba and Tao teaches the medium according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises causing the computer of the second information processing apparatus to further execute displaying a first area where an operation for executing a first function for printing a document file is accepted (Tao: fig. 9C: 902a), and a second area where an operation for executing a second function for printing an image file is accepted (Tao: fig. 9C: 902c)), in a case where the operation for executing the first function is accepted in the first area, the processing for causing the second file management program to display the second file selection screen is executed, and in a case where the operation for executing the second function is accepted in the first area, the processing for displaying a selection screen on which data other than data of a data format corresponding to the second function is not displayed is executed (fig. 9d-f).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 9 has been incorporated herein.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayami in view of Ichiba as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eubanks et al. (US 20230376336).
Regarding claim 13, Hayami in view of Ichiba does not teach the medium according to claim 1, wherein the host OS in the first environment is an Android OS, the host OS in the second operating environment is a Chrome OS, and the guest OS in the second operating environment is a virtual Android OS.
Eubanks teaches wherein the host OS in the first environment is an Android OS, the host OS in the second operating environment is a Chrome OS, and the guest OS in the second operating environment is a virtual Android OS (a secondary operating system as if it was native to the primary operating system. the ANDROID operating system is run within a virtual machine (VM) and the ANDROID-based guest application is run in a desktop of the ANDROID VM).
Hayami in view of Ichiba and Eubanks are combinable because they both deal with printing files with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hayami in view of Ichiba with the teaching of Eubanks for purpose of individual application running on a secondary operating system as if it was native to the primary operating system(p0037).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
However, the closest prior art of record, namely Hayami (US 20100293619) does not disclose, teach or suggest, the claim limitation, as recited in dependent claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (571) 270-5254. 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights