DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 12/23/2025.
Claim(s) 1-5 have been considered.
- Claim(s) 1-5 are pending.
- Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 have been amended.
- No claim(s) has/have been newly added.
- No claim(s) has/have been canceled.
- Claim(s) 1 and 4 had been previously indicated to include allowable subject matter over prior arts (However, other rejection(s) apply as detailed below).
- Claim(s) 1-5 have been rejected as described below.
- This action is MADE FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-5 is/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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “timely” in the last limitation of claim 1, as amended, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “timely” 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.
To promote compact prosecution, “ensuring that necessary alarms are timely reported upon determining that the alarm reporting is necessary” is being interpreted as to read, ensuring that necessary alarms are reported upon determining that the alarm reporting is necessary.
Claim(s) 2-3, and 5 are rejected based on dependency to claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected based on similar reasons shown for claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention.
However, claim 1 recites, “identifying a content of the abnormality and an occurrence time at which the abnormality has occurred,”, and “determining” that an alarm reporting is necessary or not necessary based on certain conditions being met (such as according to certain set monitoring time, if the machine is during operation or not, an elapsed time exceeding a certain period, etc.) and based on the abnormality identification information added to the alarm information and the stored reporting setting information. These limitation(s) fall(s) into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited step(s) of identifying, and determining as described in applicant specification, [0014], [0032-38], etc. appear to be an observation/evaluation and judgement that can be performed in the human mind (and/or written with a pen on a paper) based on some known/available data, such as alarm information and relevant stored data. These/This limitation(s) therefore recite(s) concept(s) performed in the human mind. Also note, all of these steps, can be written down with a pen on a paper. Note, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) Even if a mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer devices to perform these identification and determination steps would have been recited, it would not have taken the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Thus, this/these limitation(s) fall(s) into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Besides the abstract ideas, claim recites additional element(s) such as “an alarm reporting apparatus connected to a plurality of sheet metal processing machines to be monitored, each machine being configured to generate, when an abnormality occurs, alarm information added with abnormality identification information, …”, “the alarm reporting apparatus comprising: a monitoring alarm information storage device configured to store reporting setting information for setting whether …”, “the alarm reporting apparatus is configured to … (determining steps)” and “… report the alarm to notify the monitoring apparatus” upon determination of necessity. Additionally, as amended, note the recitation of the alarm reporting apparatus also configured to “periodically access a plurality of storage devices, … wherein each storage device stores an alarm file [with various alarm information (data) …], wherein the periodically accessing of the plurality of storage devices is performed multiple times per hour, and retrieve from the plurality of storage devices respective alarm files during the periodic accessing of the plurality of service devices”, and “such that communication load between the alarm reporting apparatus and the monitoring apparatus is controlled by periodically accessing the plurality of storage devices while ensuring that necessary alarms are timely reported upon determining that the alarm reporting is necessary”.
“An alarm reporting apparatus connected to a plurality of sheet metal processing machines to be monitored, each machine being configured to generate, when an abnormality occurs, alarm information added with abnormality identification information, …” in the abovementioned preamble (and later on in the accessing storage device limitation to describe the type of data stored, as amended) is/are recited at a high level of generality and without improvements to computer functionality and also appears to have simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments (i.e., a particular technological environment or field of use) (See MPEP 2106.05(a), MPEP 2106.04(d), and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similarly, “the alarm reporting apparatus is configured to … (determining steps)” is also recited at a high level of generality and so the same analysis applies. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claimed “the alarm reporting apparatus comprising: a monitoring alarm information storage device configured to store reporting setting information for setting whether …”, the alarm reporting apparatus also configured to “periodically access a plurality of storage devices, … wherein each storage device stores an alarm file [with various alarm information (data) …], wherein the periodically accessing of the plurality of storage devices is performed multiple times per hour, and retrieve from the plurality of storage devices respective alarm files during the periodic accessing of the plurality of service devices”, and “such that communication load between the alarm reporting apparatus and the monitoring apparatus is controlled by periodically accessing the plurality of storage devices while ensuring that necessary alarms are timely reported upon determining that the alarm reporting is necessary” (as amended), and “… report the alarm to notify the monitoring apparatus” upon determination of necessity is/are recited at a high level of generality. Absent any special structure or function provided within specification for these, for compact prosecution, these are thus interpreted to be merely invoking computer components as a tool such as generic storage device(s) and generic computer(s) since the information being stored doesn’t appear to require any special storage device or any special function performed by the storage device. In addition, the amended last limitation “such that communication load …” provides only a result-oriented solution and lacks details as to how the computer performed the functions, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". This limitation is interpreted to be about the periodical accessing of storage devices as the function and reporting and nothing more (see also the 112(b) rejection above). This/these element(s) is/are general purpose computer/computer component or other machinery that are used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or being considered as simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Besides above, as amended, the periodically accessing storage and retrieving alarm information functions amount to using a network to gather data. These limitations do not require any particular machine to acquire/transmit the data or any particular transformation of the data. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity which are incidental to the primary process of monitoring by various determinations and do not meaningfully limit the claim (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception due to the same reasons as stated above (and analyzed with details again below).
“An alarm reporting apparatus connected to a plurality of sheet metal processing machines to be monitored, each machine being configured to generate, when an abnormality occurs, alarm information added with abnormality identification information, …” in the abovementioned preamble is/are recited at a high level of generality and without improvements to computer functionality and also appears to have simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments (i.e., a particular technological environment or field of use) (See MPEP 2106.05(a), MPEP 2106.04(d), and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similarly, “the alarm reporting apparatus is configured to … (determining steps)” is also recited at a high level of generality and so the same analysis applies. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claimed “the alarm reporting apparatus comprising: a monitoring alarm information storage device configured to store reporting setting information for setting whether …”, the alarm reporting apparatus also configured to “periodically access a plurality of storage devices, … wherein each storage device stores an alarm file [with various alarm information (data) …], wherein the periodically accessing of the plurality of storage devices is performed multiple times per hour, and retrieve from the plurality of storage devices respective alarm files during the periodic accessing of the plurality of service devices”, and “such that communication load between the alarm reporting apparatus and the monitoring apparatus is controlled by periodically accessing the plurality of storage devices while ensuring that necessary alarms are timely reported upon determining that the alarm reporting is necessary” (as amended), and “… report the alarm to notify the monitoring apparatus” upon determination of necessity is/are recited at a high level of generality. Absent any special structure or function provided within specification for these, for compact prosecution, these are thus interpreted to be merely invoking computer components as a tool such as generic storage device(s) and generic computer(s) since the information being stored doesn’t appear to require any special storage device or any special function performed by the storage device. In addition, the amended last limitation “such that communication load …” provides only a result-oriented solution and lacks details as to how the computer performed the functions, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". This limitation is interpreted to be about the periodical accessing of storage devices as the function and reporting and nothing more (see also the 112(b) rejection above. This/these element(s) is/are general purpose computer/computer component or other machinery that are used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or being considered as simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next, besides above, as amended, the periodically accessing storage and retrieving alarm information functions amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and storing. These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found accessing/retrieving data (Receiving or transmitting data over a network) and storing/retrieving data (Storing and retrieving information in memory) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similar analysis from claim 1 is applicable to independent claim(s) 4 and claim 4 is thus also not patent eligible. One difference is that claim 4 recites an alarm reporting method (process) and all the limitations in claim 4 have been addressed by the analysis of claim 1.
Therefore, claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, thus includes the abstract idea of claim 1. Further, the additional limitation(s) is/are mere expansion of the abstract idea (mental step of determining a necessity of reporting) where this/these limitation(s) just describe(s) the data type further that are to be registered and manipulated (using information from the acquired data), for example, a table can be drawn on paper with a combination of information and then can be looked up to use it for the determination step and no significant additional elements are provided here. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1, thus includes the abstract idea of claim 1. Further, the additional limitation(s) is/are mere expansion of the data gathering and storing step, and under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, it is interpreted to be mere recording/storing/changing data without any further processing/analyzing based on transmission of the data as nothing further is described in specification, 0023-24 and relevant paragraphs. Thus, it is insignificant extra-solution activity as obtaining data (Receiving or transmitting data over a network) is considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). No significant additional elements are provided here. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, thus includes the abstract idea of claim 1. Further, the additional limitation(s) is/are mere expansion of the data gathering and reporting steps, and under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, it is interpreted to be mere data gathering through transmission of signal and then reporting/outputting to display signal related data. Thus, the transmission of signal here is insignificant extra-solution activity as obtaining data (Receiving or transmitting data over a network) is considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). And then the displaying step (using display and/or computing components recited in high level of generality) is merely invoking computer components as a tool. This/these element(s) is/are general purpose computer/computer component or other machinery that are used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or being considered as simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)). No significant additional elements are provided here. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claim(s) 1-5 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
As previously stated, Claim(s) 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 (and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as well based on amendments) set forth in this office action as the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination.
Claim 1, as amended, recites:
An alarm reporting apparatus connected to a plurality of sheet metal processing machines to be monitored, ed with abnormality identification information for identifying a content of the abnormality and an occurrence time at which the abnormality has occurred, the alarm reporting apparatus comprising:
a monitoring alarm information storage device configured to store reporting setting information for setting whether an abnormality is to be constantly reported for reporting an alarm to a monitoring apparatus regardless of whether or not the machine is during operation, or the abnormality is to be reported during operation for reporting the alarm to the monitoring apparatus only when the machine is during operation, the reporting setting information being set in advance for each abnormality identification information, and a monitoring time after the abnormality has occurred;
wherein the alarm reporting apparatus is configured to:
periodically access a plurality of storage devices, wherein each storage device is connected to at least one respective sheet metal processing machine of the plurality of sheet metal processing machines, wherein each storage device stores an alarm file including the alarm information generated by at least one respective machine added with the abnormality identification information for identifying the content of the abnormality and the occurrence time at which the abnormality has occurred, wherein the periodically accessing of the plurality of storage devices is performed multiple times per hour,
retrieve from the plurality of storage devices respective alarm files during the periodic accessing of the plurality of storage devices for each of the alarm files retrieved from the plurality of storage devices during the periodic accessing, the alarm reporting apparatus is configured to:
determine that an alarm reporting is necessary according to the monitoring time of 0 seconds regardless of whether or not the at least one respective machine is during operation if the abnormality occurring in the at least one respective machine in the retrieved alarm file is an abnormality to be constantly reported based on the abnormality identification information added to the alarm information in the retrieved alarm file and the reporting setting information and the monitoring time stored in the monitoring alarm information storage device,
determine that the alarm reporting is not necessary if the abnormality occurring in the at least one respective machine is an abnormality to be reported during operation and the at least one respective machine is not during operation based on the abnormality identification information in the retrieved alarm file and the occurrence time added to the alarm information in the retrieved alarm file, and the reporting setting information and the monitoring time stored in the monitoring alarm information storage device,
determine that the alarm reporting is not necessary if the abnormality occurring in the at least one respective machine is an abnormality to be reported during operation, the at least one respective machine is during operation, and an elapsed time from the occurrence of the abnormality has not exceeded a set monitoring time, and
determine that the alarm reporting is necessary if the abnormality occurring in the at least one respective machine is an abnormality to be reported during operation, the at least one respective machine is during operation, and the elapsed time from the occurrence of the abnormality has exceeded the set monitoring time or the set monitoring time is 0 seconds; and
report the alarm to notify the monitoring apparatus, only when it is determined that the alarm reporting is necessary, that an abnormality has occurred in the at least one respective machine to be monitored,
such that communication load between the alarm reporting apparatus and the monitoring apparatus is controlled by periodically accessing the plurality of storage devices while ensuring that necessary alarms are timely reported upon determining that the alarm reporting is necessary.
Regarding claim 1, based on thorough review and search performed, the closest prior art(s) identified is/are:
Grohman (US 20100102948 A1) – The disclosure of this art provides an HVAC data processing and communication network and a method of manufacturing the same. In one embodiment the network includes a system device and a user interface. The system device is configured to generate and locally store an alarm record in response to an alarm event. The system device is further configured to receive an alarm request message via a data bus. In response to receiving the alarm request message, the system device is configured to publish an alarm reporting message over the data bus. The user interface is configured to receive the alarm message and display an alert depending on a state of the flag (abstract). 0129, for example, teaches, “Summarizing various aspects of the preceding description, from the viewpoint of user notification there are four broad categories of alarms. The alarm types include continuous-type alarms and event-type alarms, both of which can be of escalation-type or are never escalated. In some embodiments, escalation alarms may be escalated. Any of these alarms may optionally be a hidden alarm, e.g., not displayed to a user, e.g., a homeowner. The hidden alarm may be reported to an installer, manufacturer or dealer, however. A Continuous-type escalation alarm is an alarm that is reported to the user after a device and case-specific time has elapsed from the start of the alarm condition. An event-type escalation alarm is an alarm that is reported to the user after a device- and/or case-specific number of alarm events of the same type has occurred. An immediate alarm is an alarm that is reported to the user upon the first occurrence of the alarm event. Note that alarm escalation need not impact the alarm clearing mechanism, as it is expected to be used for user/dealer notification only.”
This art generally teaches various broad categories of alarms and logging/reporting, but does not exactly teach/suggest the combination of limitations of claim 1, as amended.
Accordingly, prior arts of record, Komiya (JP 2013080291 A – Translation provided by Applicant in IDS), Kishi (US 20200096984 A1), Teruo (TWI646846B – Translation provided from Google Patents, 2019), Nakamura (US 5880965 A), and Grohman (US 20100102948 A1), alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claim 1.
Similar analysis is applicable to independent claim(s) 4, which also would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) set forth in this Office action. Note, claims 2-3, and 5 depend from independent claim 1.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009,158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Response to arguments
Applicant's remarks and arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered. See below for further details.
Based on amendment, a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been introduced in this office action. See above for details.
Applicant arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections (involving abstract idea) have been considered but have been deemed to be not persuasive.
The arguments in page 8-11 of applicant remarks mainly focuses on the claim limitations of claim 1.
Regarding applicant’s arguments starting last para of page 8 to last para of page 11 in applicant remarks, Examiner would like to note: applicant argues that the accessing and retrieving data from storage device cannot be mental process. These are additional features and include some further amendment, for which the above rejection has been updated. These have been considered as part of data gathering and storing and not mental step anyway. See above rejection for further details.
Regarding applicant’s arguments in pages 12-13 related to “improv(ing) the performance of the monitoring and reporting system of a sheet metal processing machine”, examiner respectfully disagrees.
See MPEP 2106.05(a):
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards the end of page 13 “a particular sheet metal processing machine that is integral to the claim, imparting a practical application”, examiner respectfully disagrees.
For the amendment that includes each storage device connected to at least one sheet metal processing machine along with the previously included recitation of the alarm reporting apparatus being “connected to a plurality of sheet metal processing machines to be monitored”, examiner would like to point out that the sheet metal processing machine has been merely recited as a type of machine (to be monitored) connected to the storage device. Also, without any details such as any structural arrangement of the machine in a particular way to implement the claimed processes or recitation of details as to how the added element/machine integrates the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception, it is not clear to examiner as to why/how “such a particular sheet metal processing machine that is integral to the claim”. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Additionally, use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(b).)
Also, as previously stated in the last office action, the added element does not meaningfully limit the claim and instead it generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. For example, employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment (in the instant claim’s case, the sheet metal processing), does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient.
Next, for the step 2B arguments in pages 14-15, applicant mainly argues at the beginning of page 15, that the claimed alarm reporting apparatus improves sheet metal processing machine monitoring technology by enabling the accessing of plurality of storage devices multiple times per hour to retrieve alarm files and selectively reporting an abnormality related to a sheet metal processing machine according to a degree of importance or a resolution status of the abnormal state.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Without any support for this argument especially the “a degree of importance or a resolution status” portion, it is not clear to examiner as to what element(s) in the claim language reflects a technical improvement and how that is tied specifically with a sheet metal processing machine monitoring technology. To re-emphasize, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. (See MPEP 2106.05(b).)
Also, regarding the argument of “enabling the accessing of plurality of storage devices multiple times per hour to retrieve alarm files and selectively reporting an abnormality related to a sheet metal processing machine according to a degree of importance or a resolution status of the abnormal state”, examiner would like to note, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP 2106.05(a).)
Based on the amendment, however, examiner has updated the rejection above, which includes updates on the analysis under Prong Two of step 2A and 2B of the subject matter eligibility test, as relevant to these arguments.
The rejection(s) for the dependent claim(s) have been updated accordingly as well.
Accordingly, claims 1-5 are not patent eligible due to having the pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
Note, based on further search and consideration, claims 1-5 remain to have been declared to have allowable subject matter, however, the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) rejections are still applicable to these claims.
Accordingly, claims 1-5 are patentable over prior arts, but are not patent eligible.
Pertinent Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
UNAGAMI et al. (US 20190340175 A1) relates to an information provision method that includes accumulating, in a first database, a first identifier identifying each of one or more service providers, and first device information indicating an electrical device to be designated by each of the one or more service providers in association with each other; accumulating, in a second database, a second identifier identifying each of one or more users, and second device information indicating an electrical device to be used by the one or more users in association with each other; extracting a service provider associated with the first device information when the second device information is updated by addition of a new electrical device to be used by one of the one or more users, and when the new electrical device is included in the electrical devices indicated by the first device information.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARZIA T MONTY whose telephone number is (571)272-5441. The examiner can normally be reached on T-F: 11am -5pm (approximately). 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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5441.
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. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARZIA T MONTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117