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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 14-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-11 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12200177 (‘177) to Minegishi. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 14
Claim 1 of ‘177
14. An information processing apparatus connected to a printer, comprising:
one or more memories that store instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions stored in the one or more memories to:
1. An information processing apparatus connected to a printer, comprising:
one or more memories that store instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions stored in the one or more memories to:
execute first processing to display a disposing guide screen of the printer including ink mounting and execute second processing including installation processing of a driver,
execute first processing to display a disposing guide screen of the printer including ink mounting and execute second processing including installation processing of a driver,
wherein the first processing and the second processing are executed in parallel in setup processing to make the printer available; and
wherein the first processing and the second processing are executed in parallel in setup processing to make the printer available; and
control a notification of an error to a user based on whether the first processing is in execution or not in a case where an error occurs in the second processing;
control a notification of an error to a user based on whether the first processing is in execution or not in a case where an error occurs in the second processing;
wherein in a case where an error occurs in the second processing during the execution of the first processing, information indicating the error is saved,
wherein in a case where an error occurs in the second processing during the execution of the first processing, information indicating the error is saved,
and displaying the error based on the information indicating the saved error is performed after the first processing is completed in order not to notify the user of the error during the execution of the first processing; and
and control is performed (display is controlled) in order not to notify the user of the error during the execution of the first processing by displaying the error based on the information indicating the saved error after the first processing is completed;
wherein in a case where an error occurs in the second processing after the execution of the first processing is completed, the user is notified of the error at a timing of the occurrence of the error.
and wherein in a case where an error occurs in the second processing after the execution of the first processing is completed, the user is notified of the error at a timing of the occurrence of the error.
Regarding claim 15
Claim 2 of ‘177
15. The information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein in a case where an error occurs in one of the first processing and the second processing, a method of resolving the error is displayed after the other of the first processing and the second processing is completed.
2. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where an error occurs in one of the first processing and the second processing, a method of resolving the error is displayed after the other of the first processing and the second processing is completed.
Regarding claim 16
Claim 3 of ‘177
16. The information processing apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the one or more processors further cause the communication apparatus to confirm that the other of the first processing and the second processing is completed.
3. The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors further cause the communication apparatus to confirm that the other of the first processing and the second processing is completed.
Regarding claim 17
Claim 7 of ‘177
17. The information processing apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the information processing apparatus is connected with a plurality of printing apparatuses.
7. The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the information processing apparatus is connected with a plurality of printing apparatuses.
Regarding claim 18
Claim 4 of ‘177
18. The information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the one or more processors further cause the communication apparatus to determine whether an error that occurs in one of the first processing and the second processing does not affect the other of the first processing and the second processing.
4. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further cause the communication apparatus to determine whether an error that occurs in one of the first processing and the second processing does not affect the other of the first processing and the second processing.
Regarding claim 19
Claim 5 of ‘177
19. The information processing apparatus according to claim 18, wherein
in a case where the error that occurs in the one of the first processing and the second processing includes a power source operation to power off the apparatus to solve the error, it is determined that the other of the first processing and the second processing is affected.
5. The information processing
apparatus according to claim 4, wherein in a case where the error that occurs in the one of the first processing and the second processing includes a power source operation to power off the apparatus to solve the error, it is determined that the other of the first processing and the second processing is affected.
Regarding claim 20
Claim 6 of ‘177
20. The information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein
the second processing includes printing queue creation processing corresponding to the printing apparatus.
6. The information processing
apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second processing includes printing queue creation processing corresponding to the printing apparatus.
Regarding claim 21
Claim 8 of ‘177
21. The information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the one or more processors further cause the communication apparatus to:
determine whether the driver has been installed or not after the execution of the first processing;
8. The information processing
apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further cause the communication apparatus to: determine whether the driver has been installed or not after the execution of the first processing is completed;
in a case where it is determined that the driver has not been installed yet, determine whether there is an driver installation error or not; and
in a case where it is determined that the driver has not been installed yet, determine whether there is a driver installation error or not; and
in a case where it is determined that the driver installation error exists, notify the user of the driver installation error.
in a case where it is determined that the driver installation error exists, notify the user of the driver installation error.
Regarding claim 22
Claim 9 of ‘177
22. The information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the one or more processors further cause the communication apparatus to:
determine whether a printing queue has been created or not after the execution of the first processing;
9. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further cause the communication apparatus to:
determine whether a printing queue has been created or not after the execution of the first processing is completed;
in a case where it is determined that the printing queue has not been created, determine whether there is a printing queue creation error or not; and
in a case where it is determined that the printing queue has not been created, determine whether there is a printing queue creation error or not; and
in a case where it is determined that the printing queue creation error exists, notify the user of the printing queue creation error.
in a case where it is determined that the printing queue creation error exists, notify the user of the printing queue creation error.
Regarding claim 23
Claim 10 of ‘177
23. The information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the one or more processors further cause the communication apparatus to:
switch from display of the disposing guide screen to display of a driver installation screen based on completion of the first processing.
10. The information processing
apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further cause the communication apparatus to:
switch from display of the disposing guide screen to display of a driver installation screen based on completion of the first processing.
Regarding claim 24
Claim 11 of ‘177
24. The information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the one or more processors further cause the communication apparatus to:
save information indicating an error and perform control in order not to notify the user of the error during the execution of the first processing in a case where the error occurs in printing queue creation during the execution of the first processing.
11. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further cause the communication apparatus to:
save information indicating an error and perform control in order not to notify the user of the error during the execution of the first processing in a case where the error occurs in printing queue creation during the execution of the first processing.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 25-26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12200177 (‘177) to Minegishi in view of US 20150081050 to Miwa.
Regarding claim 25
Claim 12 of ‘177
25. A control method of an information processing apparatus which is connected to a printer, the control method comprising:
12. A control method of an information processing apparatus which is connected to a printer, the control method comprising:
execute first processing to display a disposing guide screen of the printer including ink mounting and execute second processing including installation processing of a driver, wherein the first processing and the second processing are executed in parallel in setup processing to make the printer available; and
executing first processing to display a disposing guide screen of the printer including ink mounting and executing second processing including installation processing of a driver, wherein the first processing and the second processing are executed in parallel in setup processing to make the printer available;
control a notification of an error to a user based on whether the first processing is in execution or not in a case where an error occurs in the second processing;
controlling a notification of an error to a user based on whether the first processing is in execution or not in a case where an error occurs in the second processing;
wherein in a case where an error occurs in the second processing during the execution of the first processing, information indicating the error is saved,
wherein in a case where an error occurs in the second processing during the execution of the first processing, information indicating the error is saved,
and displaying the error based on the information indicating the saved error is performed after the first processing is completed in order not to notify the user of the error during the execution of the first processing; and
and control is performed (display is controlled) in order not to notify the user of the error during the execution of the first processing by displaying the error based on the information indicating the saved error after the first processing is completed;
wherein in a case where an error occurs in the second processing after the execution of the first processing is completed, the user is notified of the error at a timing of the occurrence of the error.
and wherein in a case where an error occurs in the second processing after the execution of the first processing is completed, the user is notified of the error at a timing of the occurrence of the error
However ‘177 does not disclose storing instructions in one or more memories; and
executing the instructions stored in the one or more memories by one or more processors.
Miwa discloses storing instructions in one or more memories; and
executing the instructions stored in the one or more memories by one or more processors (paragraph 36-37; CPU executes program stored in RAM 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of ‘177 as taught by Miwa to provide memory for storing program and processor to execute the program.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide processor to perform the method of the printer executing installation and display process in parallel by programming the processor to execute instructions stored in memory.
Regarding claim 26
Claim 13 of ‘177
26. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for an information processing apparatus which is connected to a printer, wherein the program causes the information processing apparatus to execute a method comprising:
13. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for an information processing apparatus which is connected to a printer, wherein the program causes the information processing apparatus to execute a method comprising:
execute first processing to display a disposing guide screen of the printer including ink mounting and execute second processing including installation processing of a driver, wherein the first processing and the second processing are executed in parallel in setup processing to make the printer available; and
executing first processing to display a disposing guide screen of the printer including ink mounting and executing second processing including installation processing of a driver, wherein the first processing and the second processing are executed in parallel in setup processing to make the printer available;
control a notification of an error to a user based on whether the first processing is in execution or not in a case where an error occurs in the second processing;
controlling a notification of an error to a user based on whether the first processing is in execution or not in a case where an error occurs in the second processing;
wherein in a case where an error occurs in the second processing during the execution of the first processing, information indicating the error is saved,
wherein in a case where an error occurs in the second processing during the execution of the first processing, information indicating the error is saved,
and displaying the error based on the information indicating the saved error is performed after the first processing is completed in order not to notify the user of the error during the execution of the first processing; and
and control is performed (display is controlled) in order not to notify the user of the error during the execution of the first processing by displaying the error based on the information indicating the saved error after the first processing is completed;
wherein in a case where an error occurs in the second processing after the execution of the first processing is completed, the user is notified of the error at a timing of the occurrence of the error.
and wherein in a case where an error occurs in the second processing after the execution of the first processing is completed, the user is notified of the error at a timing of the occurrence of the error
However ‘177 does not disclose storing instructions in one or more memories; and
executing the instructions stored in the one or more memories by one or more processors.
Miwa discloses storing instructions in one or more memories; and
executing the instructions stored in the one or more memories by one or more processors (paragraph 36-37; CPU executes program stored in RAM 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of ‘177 as taught by Miwa to provide memory for storing program and processor to execute the program.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide processor to perform the method of the printer executing installation and display process in parallel by programming the processor to execute instructions stored in memory.
Other Prior Art Cited
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200042255 to Kawaura discloses notification of error in printer based on completion of initial setting process of printer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENIYAM MENBERU whose telephone number is (571) 272-7465. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00am-6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 270-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the customer service office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600. The group receptionist number for TC 2600 is (571) 272-2600.
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.
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.
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).
Patent Examiner
Beniyam Menberu
/BENIYAM MENBERU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
09/18/2026
Prosecution Insights