Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 2, the applicant argues that Ye (US-10,754,540) only teaches toggling between types of communication while the claimed invention recites control logic where when the maintenance switch is in an ON state and the data transmission switch is in and OFF state, the remote maintenance device is unable to acquire the operation information [see applicant’s arguments section 1 L. 1-9].
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. As explained, in the previous office action when Ye’s teachings are applied in the information processing device taught by the combination of Schroeder and Ogata, the buttons taught by Ye will permit to turn on and off the first and second communication units taught by the combination individually [see response to arguments in the office action dated September 5, 2025]. Therefore, if the button (data transmission button) used to control the first communication unit is in an OFF state, the information processing device taught by the combination will not be able to transmit any data to the remote device regardless if the button (remote maintenance button) used to control the second communication unit is off or on. In other words, the remote maintenance device is unable to receive the operation information from the information processing device even when the second unit is enabled because the first communication unit is disabled. Therefore, the cited prior art teaches the argued control logic. For this reason, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 2, The applicant argues that the Ye’s teachings makes remote maintenance impossible because placing the data transmission switch in an OFF state would severe the link to the remote device [see applicant’s arguments section 1 L. 10-22].
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The claim, as written, does not recite that the remote maintenance device is able to perform remote maintenance of the machines when the transmission switch is in an OFF state as argued. The claim, as written, only recites that the remote maintenance device is a device that operates machines remotely, and it is silent about any remote maintenance functionality. Therefore, the applicant is arguing limitations that have not been claimed. For this reason, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 2, the applicant argues that the examiner has combined the cited reference using hindsight reconstruction due to the fact that the examiner used five references to reject the claim and due to the fact that the cited prior art does not suggest a reason to combine [see applicant’s arguments section 2].
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The use of five references does not mean that the examiner has used the applicant’s disclosure to combine the references and reconstruct the claimed invention as along as one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to combine the references. Furthermore, a reference does not have to explicitly recite a reason to combine for the reference to be combinable with another reference. In general, Ye teaches a communication device comprising two or more communication units and an user interface to enable/disable each communication unit separately. The combination of Schroeder and Ogata also teaches a gateway (communication device) comprising two or more communication units. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have use Ye’s teachings in the gateway taught by the combination in order to permit a user to enable or disable the communication units of the gateway separately as desired or needed. Furthermore, Giordano teaches that the physical buttons can be used to implement the user interface for disabling and enabling the communication units. The combination with Giordano constitutes a simple substitution of known element for another to obtain predictable results. For the reasons provided above, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 2, the applicant argues that the combination of the prior the Ye reference is non-analogous prior art because Ye is not in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention and is not pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor [see applicant’s arguments section 3].
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. In general, the claimed invention is directed to a communication device comprising a plurality of communication units that can be enabled or disabled individually to permit communication with other devices. In this field of endeavor the Ye reference was used. Therefore, the Ye reference is analogous prior art and it is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. For the reasons provided above, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 2, the applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to recognize the problem or data leakage [see applicant’s arguments section 4].
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The claim as written is silent about any data leakage prevention functionality. Therefore, the applicant is arguing limitations that have not been claimed. For this reason, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (US-2019/0217532) in view of Ogata et al. (US-2016/0261481) and Mansfield (US-2022/0128982), Ye et al. (US-10,754,540) and Giordano (US-11,079,845).
In regards to claim 2, Schroeder teaches a system comprising at least one of a plurality of cutting machines, a plurality of additive manufacturing machines and a plurality of cutting machines and additive manufacturing machines [par. 0105 L. 3-10, par. 0120 L. 1-8].
Schroeder does not teach that the system comprises an information processing device.
On the other hand, Ogata teaches that a system comprising a plurality of machines can also comprise a gateway (information processing device) comprising a first communication unit, a second communication unit and a control unit [fig. 2, fig. 4 elements 21 (control unit), 24 (first communication device) and 25 (second communication device)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Ogata’s teachings of having an information processing device in the system taught by Schroeder because it will permit the cutting machines and the additive machines to communicate remotely with a remote device.
The combination of Schroeder and Ogata teaches that the first communication unit is configured to permit communication with a remote device and the second communication device is configured to permit communication with the plurality of machines which in this case are at least one of a plurality of cutting machines, a plurality of additive manufacturing machines and a plurality of cutting machines and additive manufacturing machines [see Schroeder par. 0105 L. 3-10, par. 0120 L. 1-8, see Ogata fig. 2, elements 70 and 80, fig. 4 elements 24 and 25]. However, the combination does not teach that the remote device is a remote maintenance device capable of remotely operating the plurality of machines (cutting and additive machines).
On the other hand, Mansfield teaches that the first communication unit is configured to permit communication with a remote control device (maintenance device) capable of remotely operating the plurality of machines [fig. 1 elements 12 (gateway) and 16a (maintenance device), par. 0005 L. 6-8, par. 0054 L. 1-5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Mansfield’s teachings of using the first communication unit to communicate with a maintenance device in the device taught by the combination because it will permit the system to control the machines from a remote location.
The combination of Schroeder, Ogata and Mansfield does not teach that the gateway comprises an operation unit including a remote maintenance switch and a data transmission switch.
On the other hand, Ye teaches that a device comprising a plurality of communication units can comprise a user interface (operation unit) having individual buttons that permit a user to enable and disable each communication unit individually [fig. 6A Wi-Fi (first type of communication that can be turned on/off using a first button) and Bluetooth (second type of communication that can be turned on/off using a second button)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Ye’s teachings of having a user interface that permits to enable/disable each communication unit individually in the device taught by the combination because it will permit a user to enable/disable the first and second communication units as desired.
The combination of Schroeder, Ogata, Mansfield and Ye teaches that the device can comprise an operation unit having remote buttons that permit to enable/disable the first and second communication units individually [see Ye fig. 6A], and that the first and second communication units are used to communicate with remote device (maintenance device) and the plurality of machines respectively [see Ogata fig. 2, fig. 4]. These teachings mean that the operation unit include a remote maintenance button (button that enables/disable the second communication unit) and a data transmission button (button that enables/disables the first communication unit). These teachings also mean that the control unit of the device can determine whether or not to permit communications using the second communication unit according to whether the maintenance button is in an on or off state. Since the second communication unit is used for communications between the gateway and the machines, the processor of the gateway will only permit communication with the machines from the maintenance device only when the remote maintenance button is in an on state. In other words, based on whether the second communication unit (remote maintenance button) is enabled/on or disable/off, the control unit will determine whether or not to permit communication for remotely operating the plurality of machines by the remote maintenance device and will control connection and disconnection between the remote maintenance device and the plurality of machines.
The combination of Schroeder, Ogata, Mansfield and Ye teaches that the first communication unit is used to communicate acquired sensor data (operation information) to the remote maintenance device of the plurality of machines [see Ogata fig. 2, par. 0026 L. 1-9, see Mansfield par. 0005]. Also, the combination teaches that the first communication unit can be enabled/disabled using a button (data transmission button) and the second communication device can be enabled/disabled using another button (remote maintenance button) [see Ye fig. 6A]. Since the first communication unit is used for communications between the gateway and the remote maintenance device, the remote maintenance device will only receive the operation information when both the first and second communications units are enabled. In other words, the data transmission switch is configured to switch a state of transmission of operation information between an ON state and an OFF state, wherein the operation information is operation information of the plurality of machines (at least one of the plurality of cutting machines, the plurality of additive manufacturing machines, and the plurality of cutting machines and additive manufacturing machines), and if the remote maintenance button is in the ON state and the data transmission button is in an OFF state, the remote maintenance device is unable to acquire operation information of the plurality of machines.
The combination of Schroeder, Ogata, Mansfield and Ye teaches that the device comprises a user interface (operation unit) having buttons that permit a user to enable and disable each communication unit individually [fig. 6A]. However, the combination does not teach that the buttons can be implemented using switches.
On the other hand, Giordano teaches that buttons to enable/disable a communication units can be implemented as an on/off switches [fig. 1 element 48, col. 9 L. 1-3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Giordano’s teachings of using on/off switches to implement the buttons that enable/disable the communication units in the device taught by the combination because it will reduce the cost of the device and it is easy to implement.
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Schroeder, Ogata, Mansfield, Ye and Giordano, as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, further teaches that the information processing device is configured to be connected to a LAN for communicating with the plurality of machines [see Mansfield par. 0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Mansfield’s teachings of using a LAN to communicate with the machines in the device taught by the combination because a LAN provides secure transmission of data locally where the machines are located.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (US-2019/0217532), Ogata et al. (US-2016/0261481) in view of Mansfield (US-2022/0128982), Ye et al. (US-10,754,540) and Giordano (US-11,079,845) as applied to claim(s) 7 above, and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Schroeder, Ogata, Mansfield, Ye and Giordano, as applied in the rejection of claim 7 above, further teaches that communication between the first communication unit and an information service that provides information based on operation information transmitted from the plurality of machines is communication via a second network [see Mansfield fig. 1 element 22 and 16a, fig. 3, fig. 4B element 16a].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Mansfield’s teachings of transmitting the data to an information service in the device taught by the combination because it will permit the system to permit access to the operation information from the machines.
Also, the combination of Schroeder, Ogata, Mansfield, Ye and Giordano teaches that the first communication unit can be used to transmit the information data via the second network to an information accumulation server [see Ogata fig. 1 element 70 element 1]. This teaching means that the information processing device further comprises a transmission unit configured to transmit the operation information of the plurality of machines to an operation information accumulation server via the second network.
The combination further teaches that the user interface of the gateway comprises individual buttons to permit enabling/disabling of each communication unit individually [see Ye fig. 6A]. The combination further teaches that the buttons can be implemented as on/off switches [see Giordano fig. 1 element 48, col. 9 L. 1-3]. These teachings also mean that if the first communication unit is enabled using the switch, the gateway will be able to transmit the operation information to the server. In other words, the control unit is configured to, when the data transmission switch is in the ON state, permit transmission of the operation information to the operation information accumulation server.
The combination does not teach that the second network is a private network. However, AAPA teaches that private networks are well known in the data communications art. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have replaced the network taught by the combination with a private network because it will permit the system to transmit the data more securely and to prevent unauthorized access to the data.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (US-2019/0217532), Ogata et al. (US-2016/0261481) in view of Mansfield (US-2022/0128982), Ye et al. (US-10,754,540) and Giordano (US-11,079,845) as applied to claim(s) 2 above, and further in view of Pliml (US-4,532,384).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Schroeder, Ogata, Mansfield, Ye and Giordano, as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, further teaches that the remote maintenance switch comprises an on/off switch [see Giordano fig. 1 element 48, col. 9 L. 1-3]. However, the combination does not teach that the on/off switch is a rotary switch.
On the other hand, Pliml teaches that on/off switches can be implemented as a rotary switch that includes a rotational body and a holding part, and is configured to switch the state between the ON state and the OFF state by an operator holding the holding part and rotating the rotational body [fig. 1 and 4, abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Pliml‘s teachings of implementing an on/off switch as a rotary switch in the device taught by the combination because a rotary switch is easy to implement and user friendly.
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Schroeder, Ogata, Mansfield, Ye and Giordano, as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, further teaches that the remote maintenance button and the data transmission button can be implemented as on/off switches [see Ye 6A, fig. see Giordano fig. 1 element 48, col. 9 L. 1-3]. Also, the combination teaches that the second communication unit can be enabled using the maintenance switch [see Ye fig. 6A]. This teaching means that the remote maintenance switch allows the remote maintenance device to access the plurality of machines to which access is restricted.
The combination does not explicitly teach that the on/off switches are physical buttons/keys.
On the other hand, Pliml teaches that on/off switches can be implemented as a rotary switches (physical keys) that includes a rotational body and a holding part, and is configured to switch the state between the ON state and the OFF state by an operator holding the holding part and rotating the rotational body [fig. 1 and 4, abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Pliml‘s teachings of implementing on/off switches as a rotary switches in the device taught by the combination because a rotary switch is easy to implement and user friendly.
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 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 FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688