DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 – 9 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant has provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) JP-2021-124791 A on pages 1 - 2 of the specification.
Claim Interpretation/Rejection - 35 USC §112
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.
Claim limitations “Setting Unit”, “Storage Unit”, “Generation Unit”, “Acquisition unit”, “Transmission Unit”, “Display Unit” and “Determination Unit” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with merely functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 - 5 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Storage Unit is read by the Examiner as item 214 “Storage Section” in which is controlled by a CPU 212, Specification on ¶0036.
Generation Unit is read by the Examiner as item 111 “Printer Driver” in which generate print data, Specification on ¶0106 and/or ¶0129.
Transmission Unit is read by the Examiner as item 215 “Network Communication Section” in which transmit print data to a printer 104, Specification on ¶0037 with ¶0083.
Display Unit is read by the Examiner as item 212 “Display Section” in which is a Liquid Crystal Display, Specification on ¶0037.
Determination Unit is also read by the Examiner as part of a controller 211, in which determines that set values of the user information option indicate the designated name and acquires the value of the object 1011 in FIG. 10B, Specification on ¶0113 and ¶0132.
Claims contain limitations “Setting Unit”, “Storage Unit”, “Generation Unit”, “Acquisition unit”, “Transmission Unit”, “Display Unit” and “Determination Unit”, however the specification does not mention the terms "““Setting Unit”, “Storage Unit”, “Generation Unit”, “Acquisition unit”, “Transmission Unit”, “Display Unit” and “Determination Unit”. Although there is support for the steps and process of setting up, storing, generates, acquires, transmits, display and determines, there is a lack of support for each of their respective units. Therefore, one cannot determine the further features of the sections besides what is described in the claims. As a result of a 112(f) identification in regards to the sections, there needs to be more information to identify what the sections comprise and action they performs.
Consequently, claims 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) as indefinite for referring back to an element in the specification which is not clearly linked.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 ets eq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1- 3, 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakajima (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2022/0269454 A1, hereinafter ‘Nakajima’).
With respect to claim 1, Nakajima teaches an information processing apparatus (i.e., an information processing terminal, ¶0031), comprising: at least one processor (e.g., a CPU 202, Fig. 2); and a memory (e.g., a RAM 204, Fig. 2) coupled to the at least one processor storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (e.g., coupled to the CPU 202 storing program that, when executed by said CPU 202, ¶0037 - ¶0038), cause the processor to function as: a setting unit configured to set user information required by an image forming apparatus which is communicably connected directly or via a cloud (e.g., configured to accept/retain user information that is required to connect either of an image forming apparatus or via a cloud server, ¶0034, ¶0049, ¶0061 - ¶0063); a storage unit (e.g., a storage device 209, Fig. 2) configured to store user information set by the setting unit (e.g., configured to store accepted/retained user information, ¶0038, ¶0051); a generation unit configured to generate print data for executing a print job in the image forming apparatus (e.g., generating print data for executing a print job for said image forming apparatus, ¶0052, ¶0067, ¶0071 - ¶0072); an acquisition unit configured to acquire the user information from the storage unit when the print job is executed by the image forming apparatus (e.g., retrieve or extract the user information from the storage device when the print job is requested, ¶0059, ¶0070, ¶0076); and a transmission unit configured to transmit the print data and the user information acquired by the acquisition unit to the image forming apparatus (e.g., transmit print data and user information (username) toward the image forming apparatus, ¶0072).
With respect to claim 2, Nakajima teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a display unit, and wherein the setting unit displays a user interface on which the user information can be input (e.g., displaying a screen to input username/password, ¶00066), on the display unit, and wherein as the user information, the user interface receives an input of information required when a user logs into the image forming apparatus to execute a print job which is transmitted from the information processing apparatus to the image forming apparatus by the user having logged in the information processing apparatus and is stored in the image forming apparatus (e.g., username/password is required to get into the image forming apparatus and request held (stored) print job to be sent to the image forming apparatus, ¶00066 - ¶0067, ¶0072, ¶0076, ¶0080).
With respect to claim 3, Nakajima teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein as the user information, one of a login name of the user, which is used with respect to the information processing apparatus, a name of the information processing apparatus, and a desired character string input by a user can be set via the user interface (e.g., the user information is the username that is need to input by the user, ¶0003, ¶0076 and ¶0080, Fig. 13).
With respect to claim 5, Nakajima teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the user interface also functions as a user interface for making print settings when the print job is executed by the image forming apparatus (e.g., a user interface is configured to enter/input print setting when print data is being generated for the image forming apparatus, ¶0072, ¶0076, Fig. 10A, Fig. 10B).
With respect to claim 6, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 1.
With respect to claim 8, Nakajima notes that the invention may be realized through the execution by a CPU (Fig. 2 - CPU 202, ¶0087) of instruction codes (e.g., computer executable instructions, ¶0087) stored in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (stored in a storage medium, ¶0087). The further limitations are met by the teachings as previously discussed with respect to 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Kobayashi et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2022/0121406 A1, hereinafter ‘Kobayashi’).
With respect to claim 4, Nakajima teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, but fails to teach wherein the processor is caused to further function as a determination unit configured to determine whether or not the image forming apparatus is connected to the information processing apparatus directly or via a cloud, and wherein when displaying the user interface on the display unit, in a case where it is determined by the determination unit that the image forming apparatus is directly connected to the information processing apparatus, the setting unit displays an object for inputting the user information on the user interface, whereas in a case where it is determined by the determination unit that the image forming apparatus is connected to the information processing apparatus via the cloud, the setting unit does not display the object on the user interface or displays the object in a state inhibiting input from the object.
However, the mentioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art of print (job) settings, DevMode (capability) and printer driver as evidenced by Kobayashi. In particular, teaches wherein the processor is caused to further function as a determination unit configured to determine whether or not the image forming apparatus is connected to the information processing apparatus directly or via data, and wherein when displaying the user interface on the display unit, in a case where it is determined by the determination unit that the image forming apparatus is directly connected to the information processing apparatus, the setting unit displays an object for inputting the user information on the user interface, whereas in a case where it is determined by the determination unit that the image forming apparatus is connected to the information processing apparatus via the data, the setting unit does not display the object on the user interface or displays the object in a state inhibiting input from the object (e.g., If a printing apparatus is connected to an information processing apparatus and no restrictive information, display resulting user print settings for input; however, if the printing apparatus is connected to the information processing apparatus and there is the restricting information; then causes the display to display the resulting user print settings, with entry for the restricted setting item being restricted, abstract, ¶0006, ¶0091, ¶0150, Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Nakajima as taught by Kobayashi since Kobayashi suggested within abstract, ¶0006, ¶0091, ¶0138, ¶0150 and Fig. 9 that such modification (concept) of adding the print setting of Kobayashi into the information of cloud server of Nakajiama would determine if the print setting has restrictive information enabled before displaying the setting to the logged user; thereby restricting (inhibiting) certain functions to be used.
With respect to claim 7, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 4. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 4.
With respect to claim 9, Nakajima notes that the invention may be realized through the execution by a CPU (Fig. 2 - CPU 202, ¶0087) of instruction codes (e.g., computer executable instructions, ¶0087) stored in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (stored in a storage medium, ¶0087). The further limitations are met by the teachings as previously discussed with respect to claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Saito (U.S PG Publication No. 2020/0356314 A1)1
Kanno (U.S PG Publication No. 2015/0172484 A1)2
1This reference teaches an information processing apparatus that is connected to a printing apparatus, and comprises a CPU, a printer driver configured to cause the printing apparatus to perform a printing process, and a print extension application configured to assist a function of the printer driver: wherein the print extension application provides a first print setting UI capable of setting first print setting ability of the printing apparatus, and a second print setting UI capable of setting second print setting ability of which a load on the CPU is smaller than that of the first print setting ability; and the print extension application performs determination as to whether to permit or inhibit display of the first print setting UI based on information regarding the CPU.
2This reference teaches a user selects a device type and makes configuration settings, so that a host computer 4000 uniquely constructs the print setting screen. Thus, the user can easily make the print settings to an arbitrary printer. That is, if the user properly sets the capabilities by the configuration settings, the host computer 4000 can provide a suitable print setting environment even to a printer having unknown specifications which will be put on sale in future. However, if the user does not select the device type suitable for the printing device connected to the host computer 4000, the configuration setting screen as illustrated in FIG. 7 is displayed and the print setting screen as illustrated in FIG. 10 is displayed. That is, the items which cannot be used by the user are grayout-displayed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 Q TIEU can be reached at 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 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.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights