DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The IDS’s filed 11/14/2024, 4/28/2025, and 2/04/2026 are considered.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
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.
Appropriate correction is required.
5. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent. The abstract is merely a copy of claim 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
6. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komatsu (JP 2022046112 A).
Note: In the rejections below, the text citations with respect to Komatsu (JP 2022046112 A) are directed towards the attached English machine translation (see 892) of Komatsu (JP 2022046112 A).
In regard to claim 1, Komatsu discloses a method of controlling a data processing apparatus, the data processing apparatus including an operating system (OS) and a program that is different from the OS, the method comprising (Pg. 2 (“…FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing a hardware configuration of the data processing device 101 in FIG. The data processing device 101 may be running an operating system for a small terminal…) and Pg. 3 (“…401 is an application executed on the data processing device 101 , and is installed in ROM 203 as an application running on OS 410…”)):
controlling the data processing apparatus, based on information on the OS, to instruct the OS to display a first file selection screen using a file browser function provided by the OS or to display a second file selection screen using a file browser function of the program (Pg. 5 (“…the file browser function inside the application and the file browser function of the OS have advantages and disadvantages, respectively. There are cases where the implementation must be changed so that the application that has implemented the file browser function inside the application can use the file browsing function of the OS due to the version upgrade of the OS. For example, since version 10 of Android®, each application cannot access a folder without permission to access the folder. In other words, in the case of an application that implements the file browser function inside the application, it is necessary to obtain access permission for each folder (for example, folders 522 to 527) that may be selected. Since this is troublesome for the user, it is conceivable to change the implementation of file selection to the file browsing function of the OS…”)).
In regard to claim 2, Komatsu discloses wherein the information on the OS is information on a version of the OS (Pg. 5 (“…due to the version upgrade of the OS. For example, since version 10 of Android®…”)).
In regard to claim 3, Komatsu discloses wherein the information on the OS is information indicating whether a predetermined file selection screen provided by the OS can be provided (Pg. 5(“…in the case of an application that implements the file browser function inside the application, it is necessary to obtain access permission for each folder (for example, folders 522 to 527) that may be selected. Since this is troublesome for the user, it is conceivable to change the implementation of file selection to the file browsing function of the OS…”)).
In regard to claim 5, Komatsu discloses wherein, in a case where a version of the OS is a predetermined version, the OS is instructed to display the first file selection screen, and in a case where the version of the OS is not the predetermined version, the second file selection screen is displayed (Pg. 5 (“…the file browser function inside the application and the file browser function of the OS have advantages and disadvantages, respectively. There are cases where the implementation must be changed so that the application that has implemented the file browser function inside the application can use the file browsing function of the OS due to the version upgrade of the OS. For example, since version 10 of Android®, each application cannot access a folder without permission to access the folder. In other words, in the case of an application that implements the file browser function inside the application, it is necessary to obtain access permission for each folder (for example, folders 522 to 527) that may be selected. Since this is troublesome for the user, it is conceivable to change the implementation of file selection to the file browsing function of the OS…”)).
Note: Claim 5 recites contingent limitations (“in a case where a version of the OS is a predetermined version…” and “in a case where the version of the OS is not a predetermined version…”) and based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, only requires one of the contingent limitations as the OS cannot be both a predetermined version and not a predetermined version at the same time, see MPEP 2111.04.
In regard to claim 7, Komatsu discloses wherein, in a case where a button for selecting print data to be printed by an image forming apparatus is selected, when the OS satisfies a predetermined condition, the second file selection screen is displayed, and when the OS does not satisfy the predetermined condition, a screen for selecting a file acquisition source is displayed, and when a predetermined acquisition source is selected in the screen for selecting a file acquisition source, the OS is instructed to display the first file selection screen in the controlling (The rejection claim 1 is incorporated herein in its entirety. Further Pg. 4 (“…The print file selection screen 510 is displayed when the print button 503 is pressed on the menu screen 501. The print file selection screen 510 is a screen for selecting a file to be printed. A list of data (513 to 515) included in the "application 401" folder is displayed on the print file selection screen 510…”)).
Note: Claim 7 recites contingent limitations (“when the OS satisfies a predetermined condition…” and “when the OS does not satisfy the predetermined condition…”) and based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, only requires one of the contingent limitations as the predetermined conditions cannot be both satisfied at the same time, see MPEP 2111.04.
In regard to claim 8, Komatsu discloses wherein the OS is Android™ (Pg. 5 (“…version 10 of Android®…”)).
In regard to claim 10, Komatsu discloses wherein, in the first file selection screen, permission from a user to access a file is not required (Pg. 5 (“…When selecting a file using the file browsing function of the OS, permission for each folder is not required…”)).
In regard to claim 11, Komatsu discloses wherein the first file selection screen is used by a plurality of applications, and the second file selection screen is used by the program that is a predetermined application (Pg. 1 (“…In order to have the function to select a file from the folder provided in the storage in the mobile terminal in the application, the file browser function may be installed inside the application or the file browser provided by the operating system (OS). Functions may be used. The former allows detailed settings specific to individual applications, but the latter cannot be finely set because it is assumed that it will be used by multiple different applications…”)).
In regard to claim 12, Komatsu discloses wherein the predetermined application is a program that instructs an image forming apparatus to perform printing, and wherein the first file selection screen and the second file selection screen are screens on which print data is selected (Pg. 3 (“…The application 401 is an application that gives a print instruction or a scan instruction to the image processing device. For example, it is an application that selects a file such as image data stored in a storage on the data processing device 101 and gives an instruction to print the selected file to the image processing device 104…”)).
In regard to claim 14, medium claim 14 corresponds generally to method claim 1 and recites similar features in medium form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claim 15, apparatus claim 15 corresponds generally to method claim 1 and recites similar features in apparatus form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
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.
7. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu (JP 2022046112 A) and further in view of Vuong (US 2012/0159394 A1).
Note: In the rejections below, the text citations with respect to Komatsu (JP 2022046112 A) are directed towards the attached English machine translation (see 892) of Komatsu (JP 2022046112 A).
In regard to claim 4, while Komatsu teaches a file displayed on the second file selection screen (Pg. 4 (“…The print file selection screen 510 is displayed when the print button 503 is pressed on the menu screen 501. The print file selection screen 510 is a screen for selecting a file to be printed. A list of data (513 to 515) included in the "application 401" folder is displayed on the print file selection screen 510… The print file selection screens 510 and 520 are screens displayed by the file browser function inside the application…”), they fail to show the filtered based on information on a date of the file, as recited in the claims. Vuong teaches selecting a file similar to that of Komatsu. In addition, Vuong further teaches
filtering displayed files based on date (Fig. 4B and Paragraph 0048: slider causes files to be filtered by date).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Komatsu and Vuong before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the a file displayed on the second file selection screen taught by Komatsu to include the filtering displayed files based on date of Vuong, in order to obtain wherein a file displayed on the second file selection screen is filtered based on information on a date of the file. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as limiting files based on date would have been obtained, as suggested by Vuong (Paragraph 0049).
8. Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu (JP 2022046112 A) and further in view of Shiraga (US 2012/0246566 A1).
Note: In the rejections below, the text citations with respect to Komatsu (JP 2022046112 A) are directed towards the attached English machine translation (see 892) of Komatsu (JP 2022046112 A).
In regard to claim 6, while Komatsu teaches the information on the OS is used to instruct the OS to display the first file selection screen or the second file selection screen (The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein in its entirety), they fail to show the wherein, in a case where a picture file is selected, the information on the OS is used to instruct the OS to display the first file selection screen or display the second file selection screen, and wherein, in a case where a document file is selected, the OS is instructed to display the first file selection screen using the file browser function provided by the OS irrespective of the information on the OS, as recited in the claims. Shiraga teaches selecting a file similar to that of Komatsu. In addition, Shiraga further teaches
in a case where a picture file is selected (Figs. 2A-2C and Paragraphs 0048-0050: JPEG data item is selected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Komatsu and Shiraga before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the information on the OS is used to instruct the OS to display the first file selection screen or the second file selection screen taught by Komatsu to include the in a case where a picture file is selected of Shiraga, in order to obtain in a case where a picture file is selected, the information on the OS is used to instruct the OS to display the first file selection screen or display the second file selection screen. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as instructing JPEG data print would have been obtained, as suggested by Shiraga (Paragraph 0048 lines 4-8).
Note: Claim 6 recites contingent limitations (“in a case where a picture file is selected…” and “in a case where a document file is selected…”) and based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, only requires one of the contingent limitations as both limitations cannot be satisfied at the same time, see MPEP 2111.04.
In regard to claim 9, while Komatsu teaches the first file selection screen (Pg. 6 (“…The file selection screens 610 and 620 are screens provided by the OS, and are Uls using the file browser function of the OS…”), they fail to show the extracts and displays a picture file, as recited in the claims. Shiraga teaches selecting a file similar to that of Komatsu. In addition, Shiraga further teaches
extracting and displaying a picture file (Figs. 2A-2C and Paragraphs 0048-0050: JPEG thumbnails and JPEG preview image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Komatsu and Shiraga before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first file selection screen taught by Komatsu to include the extracting and displaying a picture file of Shiraga, in order to obtain wherein the first file selection screen extracts and displays a picture file. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as confirming the print object before printing would have been obtained, as suggested by Shiraga (Paragraph 0050).
9. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu (JP 2022046112 A) and further in view of Hoogerwerf et al. (US 2012/0304119 A1).
Note: In the rejections below, the text citations with respect to Komatsu (JP 2022046112 A) are directed towards the attached English machine translation (see 892) of Komatsu (JP 2022046112 A).
In regard to claim 13, while Komatsu teaches the second file selection screen (Pg. 4 (“…The print file selection screens 510 and 520 are screens displayed by the file browser function inside the application…”), they fail to show a display item for accessing a cloud service, as recited in the claims. Hoogerwerf teaches a file selection screen similar to that of Komatsu. In addition, Hoogerwerf further teaches
in a file selection screen, displaying a display item for accessing a cloud service (Paragraph 0025, Paragraph 0032, Paragraph 0034, Paragraph 0037, Paragraph 0041, and Paragraph 0045: user interface lists different file hosts for selection, where the file hosts include remote file systems).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Komatsu and Hoogerwerf before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the second file selection screen taught by Komatsu to include the in a file selection screen, displaying a display item for accessing a cloud service of Hoogerwerf, in order to obtain wherein the second file selection screen includes a display item for accessing a cloud service. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as allowing a user to retrieve files maintained by various file hosts would have been obtained, as suggested by Hoogerwerf (Paragraph 0001 and Paragraph 0012 lines 1-4).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ray et al. (US 2024/0184420 A1), see at least Fig. 2 element 206.
Komatsu (US 2022/0078304 A1), see at least the abstract.
Mihira (US 2018/0364963 A1), see at least the abstract.
Asai (US 2017/0153780 A1), see at least Figs. 12A-12B.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
12. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights