DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
The amendment filed 11/26/26 has been entered.
1) Claims amended:
(1) Independent claims: 1, 7 and 13.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. The pending claims comprising of 3 groups:
1) Method1: 1-6, and
2) System1: 7-12 and
3) CRM1: 13-20.
All of similar scope.
As of 11/26/25, independent claim 1 is as followed:
1. (Currently Amended) A method for performing an information technology (IT) ecosystem management and monitoring operation, comprising:
[1] executing a sustainability application on a hardware processor of an information handling system, the sustainability application being implemented to facilitate performance of an IT sustainability task, the information handling system being configured according to a modular IT component architecture, the modular IT component architecture being configured with a collection of sub-components, the collection of sub-components being configured to be connected together in a modular configuration, the modular IT component architecture allowing sub-components of the information handling system to be replaced without affecting other sub- components of the information handling system;
[2] providing an IT ecosystem monitoring and management console, the IT ecosystem monitoring and management console comprising an IT ecosystem sustainability system, the IT ecosystem sustainability system comprising a sustainability component; and,
[3] communicating between the sustainability component and the sustainability application to perform an IT component sustainability servicing operation, the IT component sustainability servicing operation servicing an IT component of the modular IT component architecture, such that performance of the IT component servicing operation assists in reducing an impact of the IT component of the modular IT component architecture on the environment, the IT component sustainability servicing operation empowering performance of a sustainability operation, the sustainability operation comprising a circular sustainability operation, the circular sustainability operation including procurement, deployment, implementation, operation, management, maintenance, remediation, replacement, repurposing, reassignment, repair, reconfiguration, refurbishment, remanufacture, resale, recycling, or recovery, or a combination thereof, of a particular IT component or sub-component, throughout a lifecycle of the IT component to reduce an impact of the IT component on the environment, the circular sustainability operation including a predict and model step, a subscribe step, a deploy step, a support step, a use step, and a sustain step, the predict and model step being performed to establish requirements, standards and goals for the procurement, deployment, implementation, operation, management, maintenance, remediation, replacement, repurposing, reassignment, repair, reconfiguration, refurbishment, remanufacture, resale, recycling, or recovery, or a combination thereof, of a particular IT component, the subscribe step and the deploy step being performed individually or in combination, to reduce the amount of waste at typical end-of-life (EOL) for the particular IT component by creating additional options for procurement, deployment, implementation, operation, management, maintenance, remediation, replacement, repurposing, reassignment, repair, reconfiguration, refurbishment, remanufacture, resale, recycling, or recovery, or a combination thereof, of the particular IT component, the support step and the use step being performed individually or in combination, to achieve IT sustainability servicing goals, the sustain step, being performed individually or in combination with the predict and model step to predict a carbon footprint associated with procurement, deployment, implementation, operation, management, maintenance, remediation, replacement, repurposing, reassignment, repair, reconfiguration, refurbishment, remanufacture, resale, recycling, or recovery, or a combination thereof, of the particular IT component over a lifecycle of the particular IT component.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[3] are added to the beginning of each step.
Note that in the last step “communicating between ….to perform an IT component…,” the phrase “to perform an IT component…” is considered as “intended use” and is shown in “[…]” bracket and may not have patentable weight. Changing all the verbs to active state, i.e., “performing…,” is recommended to improve clarity and make it active.
“[3] communicating between the sustainability component and the sustainability application [to perform an IT component sustainability servicing operation1,….]”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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.
1) In independent claims 1, 7 and 13, the last step/feature of “communicating between the sustainability component …. , of the particular IT component over a lifecycle of the particular IT component” is lengthy and vague. It contains 5-6 mini steps/functions and intended uses which can be converted into multiple positive active steps to improve clarity and provides the metes and bounds for the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
The Terminal Disclaimer filed 02/20/25 is proper and has been recorded.
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 use the word “component,” “module,” and “system” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(1) a sustainability component (Claims 1, 7, 11 and 13),
(2) an IT component sustainability servicing (ITCSS) component (claims 2, 3, 5, 8 and 10, 14, and 17),
(3) an IT component servicing diagnostic (ITCSD) module (claims 3, 9, 13, and 15),
(4) an IT component onsite repair assistant (ITCORA) module (claim 4, 5, 10, 16).
(5) IT component second life planning assistant (ITCSLPA) module (claim 5, 11 and 17),
(6) IT component multi-use packing (ITCMUP) module (claim 6, 12, and 18).
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 (please see FIG 3 for more). 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 1 recites “an information technology (IT) ecosystem environment” comprising an IT component and an IT sustainability ecosystem console. As described in paragraph 0048 and shown in FIG. 2, the IT sustainability ecosystem 200 comprising IT Component 234 and n IT sustainability ecosystem console 118. Thus, for the purpose of this examination, Examiner interprets claim 1 to be directed to a system and falls within statutory subject matter.
Claim 7 recites “system” comprising “an IT sustainability ecosystem console.” FIG. 2 shows IT component 234 and the Information Handling System 100 as separate apparatus, paragraph 0081 describes the console 118 may be a website. Thus, for the purpose of this examination, Examiner interprets the IT sustainability ecosystem console to be a software displayed on the apparatus of claim 11.
Claim 14 recites “the sustainability component communicating with the sustainability application to perform a sustainability operation” and “communicating between the sustainability component and the sustainability application to perform a sustainability operation.” Examiner interprets these limitations to have the same meaning.
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.
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(a) 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.
On October 10, 2007, the Patent Office issued the "Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.," 73 Fed. Reg. 57,526 (2007) (hereinafter the Examination Guidelines). Section III is entitled "Rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103." Within this section is the following quote from the Supreme Court: "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by merely conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Under the Examination Guidelines, the following is a list of rationales that may be used to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(e) "Obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
(g) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Each rationale is resolved using the Graham factual inquiries.
Claims 1 (method1), 7 (system1) and respectively 13 (article1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over:
Names Publications:
(1) DIAZ 2021/0.216.978, and
(2) HWANG ET AL. US 11,144,289, and
(3) JUNG ET AL. or WO 2013/165.030
As for independent claims 1 (method), 7 (system) and respectively 13 (article), DIAZ teaches a method / system /article for sustainability and carbon footprint management in an information technology (IT) ecosystem management and monitoring operation, comprising:
[1] executing a sustainability application on a hardware processor of an information handling system;
{see Fig. 4, Cloud services “Carbon Footprint (CF) Calculation Algorithms”, “Carbon Footprint (CF) Reduction”, System and App Use “User Uploads Sustainability /CF Data”,
PNG
media_image1.png
544
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
446
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
350
475
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
528
785
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The carry out of the “sustainability and carbon footprint (CF) management system” includes the execution of the sustainable application “CF Calculation Algorithms”, “CF Reduction”, as shown in Fig. 4 above.
[2] providing an IT ecosystem monitoring and management console, the IT ecosystem monitoring and management console comprising an IT ecosystem sustainability system, the IT ecosystem sustainability system comprising a sustainability component; and
{See Fig. 4 above and explanation in [0002] which discloses an IT ecosystem monitoring and management console and comprising a sustainability component input information or selection, as also shown in Fig. 6, 608}.
PNG
media_image2.png
446
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[3] communicating between the sustainability component and the sustainability application to perform an IT component sustainability servicing operation
to perform an IT component sustainability servicing operation, the IT component sustainability servicing operation servicing an IT component of the modular IT component architecture, such that performance of the IT component servicing operation assists in reducing an impact of the IT component of the modular IT component architecture on the environment,
[ii] the IT component sustainability servicing operation empowering performance of a sustainability operation, the sustainability operation comprising a circular sustainability operation, the circular sustainability operation including procurement, deployment, implementation, operation, management, maintenance, remediation, replacement, repurposing, reassignment, repair, reconfiguration, refurbishment, remanufacture, resale, recycling, or recovery, or a combination thereof, of a particular IT component or sub-component, throughout a lifecycle of the IT component to reduce an impact of the IT component on the environment on the environment,
[iv] the circular sustainability operation including a predict and model step, a subscribe step, a deploy step, a support step, a use step, and a sustain step, the predict and model step being performed to establish requirements, standards and goals for the procurement, deployment, implementation, operation, management, maintenance, remediation, replacement, repurposing, reassignment, repair, reconfiguration, refurbishment, remanufacture, resale, recycling, or recovery, or a combination thereof, of a particular IT component,
[iv] the subscribe step and the deploy step being performed individually or in combination, to reduce the amount of waste at typical end-of-life (EOL) for the particular IT component by creating additional options for procurement, deployment, implementation, operation, management, maintenance, remediation, replacement, repurposing, reassignment, repair, reconfiguration, refurbishment, remanufacture, resale, recycling, or recovery, or a combination thereof, of the particular IT component, the support step and the use step being performed individually or in combination, to achieve IT sustainability servicing goals,
[v] the sustain step, being performed individually or in combination with the predict and model step to predict a carbon footprint associated with procurement, deployment, implementation, operation, management, maintenance, remediation, replacement, repurposing, reassignment, repair, reconfiguration, refurbishment, remanufacture, resale, recycling, or recovery, or a combination thereof, of the particular IT component over a lifecycle of the particular IT component.
PNG
media_image5.png
282
600
media_image5.png
Greyscale
{see Fig. 4, Cloud services “Carbon Footprint (CF) Calculation Algorithms”, “Carbon Footprint (CF) Reduction”, System and App Use “User Uploads Sustainability /CF Data” and Fig. 6, 608 and 612 “generating user-specific sustainability information or user-specific carbon footprint information based in part on the acquired sustainability information or carbon footprint information. In an embodiment, a carbon footprint includes the total amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted from the production, use, and end-of-life of a product or service, see [0033]. As shown in [0077], the end goal is to predict a carbon footprint or a sustainability index associated with the implementation of a particular operation associated with a particular IT component over a lifecycle of the particular IT component using a sustaining model. On Fig. 5, DIAZ discloses the chart for “Comparative Analytics” of determining a carbon footprint or sustainability index of various business operation such as IT component, number of electronic devices bought/discarded, see [0142].
PNG
media_image6.png
227
481
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
124
479
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[0088 …. A modeled carbon footprint or an actual.]
PNG
media_image8.png
73
500
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
233
500
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
120
614
media_image10.png
Greyscale
DIAZ fairly teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly discloses that (1) type of system is a modular IT component architecture, and (2) the user input or selection is device sustainable component and details of the circular sustainable operation and maintenance service operation. Note that in the last step “communicating between ….to perform an IT component…,” the phrase “to perform an IT component…” is considered as “intended use” and is shown in “[…]” bracket and may not have patentable weight. Changing all the verbs to active state, i.e., “performing…,” is recommended to improve clarity and make it active.
HWANG is cited to teach the use of a modular IT component architecture being configured with a collection of sub-components in a computer environment with each independently performing a modular service uses a defined interface, such as API, to communicate with other services, see par. (14) below.
PNG
media_image11.png
237
601
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the equipment ecosystem management and monitoring operation of DIAZ by using a modular IT component architecture being configured with a collection of sub-components in a computer environment with each independently performing a modular service uses a defined interface, such as API, to communicate with other services as taught by HWANG for atomic service and scalability in hybrid network, see par. (14). Rational G/TSM, combine. Alternatively, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Alternatively, the selection of electrical equipment such as IT equipment would have been obvious as mere selection of other similar electrical equipment and/or environment.
DIAZ fairly teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly discloses that (2) the user input or selection is device sustainable component.
WO 2013/165030 A2 discloses the environmental impact analysis using greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis of activities of sustainable component, electrical equipment, that generate a plurality of operations for equipment repair or replacement plan. See note attached. It’s well known that the CF analysis is related to the GHG analysis.
PNG
media_image12.png
260
634
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
160
698
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the equipment ecosystem management and monitoring operation of DIAZ /HWANG using sustainable component such as repairing or replacement of electrical equipment as taught by WO 2013/165030 A2 for ecosystem monitoring and management of electrical equipment. Rational G/TSM, combine. Alternatively, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Alternatively, the selection of electrical equipment such as IT equipment would have been obvious as mere selection of other similar electrical equipment and/or environment.
The teaching of DIAZ / HWANG and WO 2013/165030 A2 fairly teaches the carrying out the circular sustainability operation including a predict and model step, maintenance steps and/or replacement parameters. The inclusion of other maintenance and replacement parameters as shown in [iv] the circular sustainability operation including a predict and model step, a subscribe step, a deploy step, a support step, a use step, and a sustain step, the predict and model step being performed to establish requirements, standards and goals for the procurement, deployment, implementation, operation, management, maintenance, remediation, replacement, repurposing, reassignment, repair, reconfiguration, refurbishment, remanufacture, resale, recycling, or recovery, or a combination thereof, of a particular IT component, [iv] the subscribe step and the deploy step being performed individually or in combination, to reduce the amount of waste at typical end-of-life (EOL) for the particular IT component by creating additional options for procurement, deployment, implementation, operation, management, maintenance, remediation, replacement, repurposing, reassignment, repair, reconfiguration, refurbishment, remanufacture, resale, recycling, or recovery, or a combination thereof, of the particular IT component, the support step and the use step being performed individually or in combination, to achieve IT sustainability servicing goals, [v] the sustain step, being performed individually or in combination with the predict and model step to predict a carbon footprint associated with procurement, deployment, implementation, operation, management, maintenance, remediation, replacement, repurposing, reassignment, repair, reconfiguration, refurbishment, remanufacture, resale, recycling, or recovery, or a combination thereof, of the particular IT component over a lifecycle of the particular IT component, would have been obvious as mere including other well known parameters/features.
Claim(s) 2-5 (dep. of 1 above) and respective dep. claims 8-11 (dep. of 7 above), and respective dep. claims 14-17, 19-20 (dep. of 13 above) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DIAZ /HWANG / WO 2013/165030 A2 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (3) REGO, US 2010/0.306.056.
Regarding dep. claim 2 (dep. of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 8 (dep. of 7 above), and respective dep. claim 14 (dep. of 13 above), REGO is cited to teach an information technology (IT) ecosystem management and monitoring operation comprising an IT sustainability service component performing an IT service operation, see [0010] and Fig. 3.
PNG
media_image14.png
433
475
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
232
504
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the equipment ecosystem management and monitoring operation of DIAZ /WO 2013/165030 A2 by including in the sustainable component an IT component sustainability servicing component (a service system, Fig. 2) for carrying out a service operation as taught by REGO on Fig. 2 and [0010]. Rational G/TSM, combine.
Regarding dep. claim 3 (dep. of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 9 (dep. of 7 above), and respective dep. claim 15 (dep. of 13 above), which deal with further details of the IT component sustainability servicing component, comprising an IT component servicing diagnostics module and operation, this is taught in REGO [0002 … Diagnosis and repair of complex electro-mechanical devices requires sophisticated techniques and highly trained service engineers…], [005… The repair analysis procedure might direct the engineer or repair program to request additional information , follow a diagnostic routine from the service center, …”] and Fig. 2, controller 220 and various modules to carry out the diagnostic function and steps as shown in Fig. 1.
Regarding dep. claim 4 (dep. of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 10 (dep. of 7 above), and respective dep. claim 16 (dep. of 13 above), which deal with further details of the IT component sustainability servicing component, comprising an IT component onsite repair assistant module for carrying out the onsite repair assistant operation, this is taught in REGO [004… Current on-site service processes for diagnosis and repair of electromechanical devices…The repair analysis procedure might direct the engineer or repair program to request additional information , follow a diagnostic routine from the service center, …”].
Regarding dep. claim 5 (dep. of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 11 (dep. of 7 above), and respective dep. claim 17 (dep. of 13 above), which deal with further details of the IT component sustainability servicing component, comprising an IT component second life planning assistant module for carrying out operation, this is taught in WO 2013/165030 A2 which teaches ecosystem GHG impact analysis by evaluation replacement plan vs. repair plan which normally involves second life planning operation.
PNG
media_image13.png
160
698
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding dep. claim 19 (dep. of 13 above), which deals with instructions being deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location, this is taught in REGO [0040… remote service may be caused 405 to be performed relative to the first printing device responsive to receiving an acceptance of the offer 404…].
PNG
media_image16.png
339
475
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Regarding dep. claim 20 (dep. of 13 above), which deals with instructions being deployable to a client system by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis, this is taught in REGO claim 10 wherein the remote service is carried out upon a user’s request (on-demand basis), or Fig. 1. , 105 “Make an offer..”, 106 “remote service..”
PNG
media_image17.png
304
475
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6 (dep. of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 12 (dep. of 7 above), and respective dep. claim 18 (dep. of 13 above) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DIAZ / HWANG /WO 2013/165030 A2 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (4) PAUL et al, US 2022/0.273.837.
Regarding dep. claim 6 (dep. of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 12 (dep. of 7 above), and respective dep. claim 18 (dep. of 13 above), PAUL et al. teaches a component sustainability servicing comprising multi-use packaging function in order to enable the user to reuse the secondary package and reduce the environmental carbon footprint associated with the use of the system.
PNG
media_image18.png
286
606
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the equipment ecosystem management and monitoring operation of DIAZ /WO 2013/165030 A2 by including in the sustainable component an component multi-use packaging module to carry out the multi-use packaging function for packaging of purchase device or equipment in WO 2013/165030 A2 in a “replacement plan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because a new citation has been used to address the amended features.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2023/0048513 A1 to Gao et al discloses monitoring the cloud service health for customers.
US PGPUB 2023/0376011 A1 to Platenius-Mohr et al discloses monitoring field devices.
US PGPUB 2023/0376888 A1 to Lee et al discloses tracking an asset location.
US PGPUB 2017/0006410 A1 to Barrett discloses repair and replacement of
components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. 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.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629