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
This communication is in response to application filed on May 21, 2025 in which claims 1-8 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Japan parent Application No. 2024-091575 on 06/05/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Objection to the Title
TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the
invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive. The title of the disclosure is objected to because the current title, “INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM”, is more indicative of a general category/subject to which claims are directed. While the current title describes the invention it does so in a very general sense and is not clearly indicative of the claimed invention. It lacks the necessary detail to differentiate Applicant's communication apparatus. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the Applicant, the Examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by Examiner's Amendment pursuant to MPEP 606.01.
Objection to the Abstract
The content of a patent abstract should be such as to enable the reader thereof,
regardless of his or her degree of familiarity with patent documents, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection of the abstract the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains (MPEP 608.01 (b)). The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the current abstract merely repeats the claim language and does not enable the reader thereof to determine the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01 (b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1: The term "capable" in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "capable" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 2: The term "can" in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "can" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (US 20140175875 A1) hereinafter “Newman” in view of Baba et al. (US 20230291643 A1) hereinafter “Baba”.
As to claim 1, Newman discloses an information processing apparatus (Newman [24-28] wireless control device), comprising:
a proxy server for relaying communication from a network device, which is included in management targets of a management service of device management system, to an external network (Newman [75-77, 90-91], sending Wi-Fi connection information from the master gateway node to a targeted device of a network environment);
one or more memories storing instructions, and one or more processors ([100]) capable of executing the instructions causing the information processing apparatus to:
set setting information indicating one or more conditions related to a distribution of a device setting value to the network device (Newman [76-80], discloses wherein the master gateway node may provide an indication via the Clear Connect.TM. protocol to the one or more devices of the network environments that may invite the one or more devices to use the Wi-Fi protocol access information to communicate, at least for a firmware upgrade with one or more devices of the network environments);
executes, based on the setting information, first processing for distributing a setting value related to a proxy setting and second processing for instructing the network device to restart (Newman [77-80, 90-91], discloses wherein the firmware upgrade is fully communicated and/or completed the master gateway node may signal via the Wi-Fi and/or Clear Connect.TM. protocols the invited node to discontinue Wi-Fi communication and/or to leave the Wi-Fi network to finish the installation and reboot),
Newman is silent on wherein the distributed setting value indicates the proxy server is used for the communication from the network device to the external network.
However, Baba [33-36] discloses wherein communication I/F is a network interface for performing communication with an external system and an external device, and wherein the proxy server is used by the image forming apparatus).
Newman and Baba are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, systems and methods of monitoring network devices. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Newman and Baba before him or her, to modify the system of Newman to include the monitoring feature of Baba with reasonable expectation that this would result in a system that is capable of utilizing the proxy for external communications. This method of improving the multiple network control devices system of Newman was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Baba. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Newman with Baba to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
As to claim 2, Newman-Baba discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the setting information includes a time zone during which the device setting value can be distributed to the network device (Newman [44, 71-73], discloses various timers and time ranges for prescribed period of time for performing certain operations). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Newman and baba as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 3, Newman-Baba discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim1, wherein the distributed setting value is a setting value for an optional function of the network device to execute the communication via the proxy server (Baba [34-36], discloses wherein proxy setting unit manages a proxy setting for using the proxy function of the monitoring device). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Newman and baba as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 4, Newman-Baba discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the first processing is executed according to a determination based on information that has already been set as service mode setting in the network device and acquired from the network device (Newman [39-40, 88], discloses wherein the control instructions may include pre-configured settings). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Newman and baba as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 5, Newman-Baba discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim1, wherein the instructions further cause the information processing apparatus to: provide an instruction screen that enables the execution of the first processing and the second processing, regardless of the setting information (Newman [33-34], discloses wherein the wireless control device has a visual display which includes a touch screen having, a capacitive touch pad displaced overtop the visual display, such that the visual display may display soft buttons that may be actuated by a user). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Newman and baba as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 6, Newman-Baba discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the information processing apparatus to provide a display to identify a network device for which the setting value according to the distribution by the first processing based on the setting information have not yet been set (Baba [59-60], discloses wherein the management target device list screen, device information of devices that are management targets by the device management service, and wherein the diagram showing an example of an unmanaged device list screen). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Newman and baba as in claim 1 above.
Claims 7, and 8 are corresponding method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims that recite similar limitations as of claims 1-6 and do not contain any additional features with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Correspondence Information
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Razu Miah whose telephone number is (571)270-5433. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 23949. 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.
/RAZU A MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights