DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an amendment/arguments filed on 10/14/2025 which was in response to the office action mailed on 7/16/2025 (hereinafter the prior office action).
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 13 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are independent.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome prior Specification objection(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 10/14/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in Pg. 11 in “Remarks” that Nord does not teach beyond back-and-forth communication as opposed to Applicant’s claim 1 reciting control of devices, the devices being field devices, and using WLAN to do so.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Nord teaches control of devices. This is because Nord discloses in Fig. 1 processing devices that send controlling signals to other field devices using wireless signals as further outlined below.
Further, it is not Nord, but Holland, that teaches the controlled devices being field devices (Holland, Para. 33). Further, it is not Nord by itself, but in combination with Holland, that teaches using WLAN, where Nord in Fig. 1, Para. 56 teaches wireless area network, and Holland in Para. 31, 33 teaches WLAN.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, it is neither Nord, nor Holland, taken individually, but the combination of both Nord and Holland that teaches the claim limitations above.
Applicant further states in Pg. 11 in “Remarks” that Holland does not teach controlling in response to a triggering event triggered by an external device.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because it is Nord, not Holland that teaches controlling in response to a triggering event. This is because Nord teaches in Para. 71 that trigger event activates the wireless service interface 12; further, Nord teaches in Fig. 1, Para. 12, 71 that trigger event is receipt of radio signal using first wireless service interface 11, i.e. radio interface, from a further, i.e. second, device 20, 25.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, it is neither Nord, nor Holland, taken individually, but the combination of both Nord and Holland that teaches the claim limitations above.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the controller activates…” in Claim 1,
“the controller uses…to control…” in Claim 1,
“the control device simulates…” in Claim 2,
“the control device receives…or transmits…” in Claim 3,
“the control device automatically deactivates…” in Claim 4, and
“the control device receives…and deactivates…” in Claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nord (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0196044) (hereinafter “Nord”) in view of Holland et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0187832) (hereinafter “Holland”).
Regarding claim 1, Nord teaches a control device comprising a wireless service interface to a wireless…area network…; a radio interface; and a controller; (Fig. 1, Para. 56 - - control device 10 comprises radio interface 11, wireless service interface 12 and controller 13, along with wireless communication network; Para. 60, 63 - - interfaces use radio communication)
wherein the controller activates the wireless service interface in response to receipt of a radio signal (Para. 71 - - trigger event activates the wireless service interface 12)
from a second device via the radio interface; (Fig. 1, Para. 12, 71 - - trigger event is receipt of radio signal using first wireless service interface 11, i.e. radio interface, from a further, i.e. second, device 20, 25)
and the controller uses the wireless service interface to control one or more…devices (Fig. 1, Para. 58 - - further, i.e. second, device may be mobile device or further, i.e. second, device may be user equipment with wireless interfaces, i.e. device)
But Nord does not explicitly teach wireless local area network (WLAN)
control field devices of a building automation system through a field bus of the WLAN.
However, Holland teaches wireless local area network (WLAN) (Para. 33 - - LAN is used; Para. 31 - - where network can use wireless communication, i.e. WLAN)
control field devices of a building automation system through a field bus of the WLAN. (Para. 33 - - equipment, i.e. field devices, in a building automation system are controlled; Para. 34 - - control can be over bus)
Nord and Holland are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain control via wireless communications.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Nord, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Holland.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to control, monitor and manage equipment in or around a building or building area, as suggested by Holland (Para. 33).
Regarding claim 2, Nord further teaches wherein the control device simulates…upon receiving the radio signal and thereby activates the wireless service interface. (Para. 71 - - trigger event activates the wireless service interface 12, which is a simulation of a physical action such as pressing a button)
Holland further teaches the activation of a service button located on the control device (Para. 59 - - buttons on control device can be activated)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to allow a user to control device(s), as suggested by Holland (Para. 59).
Regarding claim 3, Nord further teaches wherein after activation of the wireless service interface, the control device receives data or transmits data using the wireless service interface. (Para. 60 - - interface 12 is activated for receiving or transmitting data)
Regarding claim 4, Nord further teaches wherein the control device automatically deactivates the wireless service interface after receiving or transmitting the data. (Para. 75, 77 - - interface 12 is deactivated when no longer needed, i.e. after receiving or transmitting the data)
Regarding claim 5, Nord further teaches wherein the second device comprises a mobile communication terminal. (Fig. 1, Para. 58 - - further, i.e. second, device may be mobile device)
Regarding claim 6, Holland further teaches wherein the second device comprises a wireless communication field device. (Para. 33-34 - - field devices are controlled including wireless communication being used)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to control, monitor and manage equipment in or around a building or building area, as suggested by Holland (Para. 33).
Regarding claim 7, Nord further teaches wherein the control device receives the radio signal generated by the second device via a radio connection and deactivates the wireless service interface on the basis of the radio signal. (Para. 75, 77 - - interface 12 is deactivated when no longer needed, i.e. after receiving or transmitting the data)
Regarding claim 8, Nord teaches a method for controlling…devices…using a control device, the method comprising: sending a radio signal to the control device, the radio signal generated by a second device; (Fig. 1 - - control device 10 comprises wireless service interface 12 and controller 13; Para. 71 - - trigger event activates the wireless service interface 12)
receiving the radio signal at a radio interface of the control device; (Fig. 1, Para. 12, 71 - - trigger event is receipt of radio signal using first wireless service interface 11, i.e. radio interface, from a further, i.e. second, device 20, 25; Para. 60, 63 - - interfaces use radio communication)
activating a first wireless service interface with a wireless…area network…of the control device in response to the receipt of the radio signal; (Fig. 1, Para. 56 - - wireless communication network; Para. 71 - - trigger event activates the wireless service interface 12)
and using the first wireless service interface to control one or more…devices (Fig. 1, Para. 58 - - further, i.e. second, device may be mobile device or further, i.e. second, device may be user equipment with wireless interfaces, i.e. device)
But Nord does not explicitly teach controlling field devices in a building
wireless local area network (WLAN)
control field devices of the building automation system with the control device through a field bus of the WLAN.
However, Holland teaches controlling field devices in a building (Para. 33 - - equipment, i.e. field devices, in a building automation system are controlled)
wireless local area network (WLAN) (Para. 33 - - LAN is used; Para. 31 - - where network can use wireless communication, i.e. WLAN)
control field devices of the building automation system with the control device through a field bus of the WLAN. (Para. 33 - - equipment, i.e. field devices, in a building automation system are controlled; Para. 34 - - control can be over bus)
Nord and Holland are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain control via wireless communications.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Nord, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Holland.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to control, monitor and manage equipment in or around a building or building area, as suggested by Holland (Para. 33).
Regarding claim 9, Nord further teaches wherein activation of the first wireless service interface includes simulating…by the radio signal received from the second device. (Fig. 1, Para. 12, 71 - - trigger event is receipt of radio signal using first wireless service interface 11, i.e. further wireless interface from a further, i.e. second, device 20, 25, where trigger event activates the wireless service interface 12, which is a simulation of a physical action such as pressing a button)
Holland further teaches pressing a service button located on the control device (Para. 59 - - buttons on control device can be activated)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to allow a user to control device(s), as suggested by Holland (Para. 59).
Regarding claim 10, Nord further teaches automatically deactivating the first wireless service interface after the data has been transferred. (Para. 75, 77 - - interface 12 is deactivated when no longer needed, i.e. after receiving or transmitting the data)
Regarding claim 11, Nord further teaches automatically deactivating the first wireless service interface upon receipt of a further radio signal generated by the second device and sent to the control device. (Para. 75, 77 - - interface 12 is deactivated when no longer needed, i.e. after receiving or transmitting the data)
Regarding claim 12, Holland further teaches wherein the second device comprises a mobile communication terminal or a correspondingly designed field device. (Para. 33-34 - - field devices are controlled)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to control, monitor and manage equipment in or around a building or building area, as suggested by Holland (Para. 33).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0259533 by Nixon et al., which discloses self-configuring communication networks for use with process control systems (Title/Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119