Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/049,888

MANAGEMENT DEVICE AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 26, 2022
Examiner
RAZA, MUHAMMAD A
Art Unit
2449
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Seiko Epson Corporation
OA Round
4 (Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
158 granted / 274 resolved
At TC average
Strong +71% interview lift
Without
With
+70.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
306
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
6.5%
-33.5% vs TC avg
§112
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 274 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Status of Claims Claims 1, 3 and 5-6 are pending in this Office Action. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed in the amendment filed 09/15/2025, have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections. The reasons are set forth below. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The formal drawings received on 10/26/2022 have been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US 20220053055) in view of Ito (US 20170176917). Claims 1, 6. Maeda teaches: A management device coupled to a device, – in paragraphs [0008]-[0258] (The device list may further includes information pertaining to terminal 50 connected to home gateway 20.) the management device comprising: – in paragraphs [0008]-[0258] (The device list may further includes information pertaining to terminal 50 connected to home gateway 20.) a device communication unit that communicates with the device; – in paragraphs [0008]-[0258] (Home gateway 20 includes receiver 100, initial device list generator 110, unregistered device detector 120, classifier 130, appliance message determiner 140, forwarding determiner 150, transmitter 160, and device list holder 200. Note that home gateway 20 and terminal 50 may communicate by having a server (not shown) connected to Internet 10 and having home gateway 20 and terminal 50 communicate with the server via Internet 10. Terminal 50 may be connected to home gateway 20 directly and view the states of electric lock 40, air conditioner 41, and lighting 42, or receive notifications from home gateway 20.) a device controller that generates a device list in which the device is registered, and – in paragraphs [0008]-[0258] (Initial device list generator 110 of home gateway 20 searches for devices connected to home network 11 and registers devices which have been found in the device list. Initial device list generator 110 performs processing for generating a device list.) acquires device information from the device registered in the device list; and – in paragraphs [0008]-[0258] (In the device list, whether the device only transmits, only receives, or both transmits and receives control messages for controlling appliances may be registered, and a detailed type such as whether the appliance is an electric lock, an air conditioner, lighting, a controller, or the like may be registered. Classifier 130 of home gateway 20 generates the device list by transmitting, to each of the plurality of devices, a determination message for determining whether or not each of the plurality of devices is an appliance, and generates the device list on the basis of response messages responding to the determination messages.) a storage that stores the generated device list, – in paragraphs [0008]-[0258] (Device list holder 200 holds information pertaining to the plurality of devices connected to home network 11 in list format as the device list.) wherein the device list is generated and stored based on a detection that a sequence in which the management device shifts from a first state to a second state is started, and – in paragraphs [0008]-[0258] (Initial device list generator 110 of home gateway 20 generates the device list when home gateway 20 is started up, and the devices are classified as “appliances” or “non-appliances”. Device list holder 200 holds information pertaining to the plurality of devices connected to home network 11 in list format as the device list.) Maeda does not explicitly teach: the first state is a power-saving state where power consumed by the management device is lower than that in the second state. However, Ito teaches: the first state is a power-saving state where power consumed by the management device is lower than that in the second state. – in paragraphs [0008]-[0251] (The transition to the sleep state Q2 enables needless power consumption to be suppressed. The MFP makes a transition to a sleep state (power saving state) where power is stopped being supplied to some processing circuits and the like based on, for example, a request to reduce power consumption, when a certain period of non-operation passes in the working state.) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maeda with Ito to include the first state is a power-saving state where power consumed by the management device is lower than that in the second state, as taught by Ito, in paragraphs [0003]-[0037], to provide a technique where a device makes a transition to a sleep state (power saving state) where power is stopped being supplied to some processing circuits and the like based on, for example, a request to reduce power consumption, when a certain period of non-operation passes in the working state. Claim 5. The management device according to claim 1 – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s). Maeda teaches: further comprising: a network communication unit communicating with an external management device via a communication network, – in paragraphs [0008]-[0258] (Terminal 50 is a device connected to Internet 10 over a mobile phone network (wireless). Initial device list generator 110 requests classifier 130 to classify the devices registered in device list holder 200, and classifier 130 executes the classification processing (S1002).) wherein the device controller acquires the device information from the device registered in the device list, based on an instruction received via the network communication unit. – in paragraphs (In the device list, whether the device only transmits, only receives, or both transmits and receives control messages for controlling appliances may be registered, and a detailed type such as whether the appliance is an electric lock, an air conditioner, lighting, a controller, or the like may be registered. Classifier 130 of home gateway 20 generates the device list by transmitting, to each of the plurality of devices, a determination message for determining whether or not each of the plurality of devices is an appliance, and generates the device list on the basis of response messages responding to the determination messages.) Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US 20220053055) in view of Ito (US 20170176917), and further in view of Shimmura (US 20080215714). Claim 3. The management device according to claim 1 – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s). Combination of Maeda and Ito does not explicitly teach: wherein the device controller deletes the device list stored in the storage when the management device shifts from the second state to the first state. However, Shimmura teaches: wherein the device controller deletes the device list stored in the storage when the management device shifts from the second state to the first state. – in paragraph [0010] (Allowing the first server which is to shift from the operating state into the standby state, to delete the given predetermined address.) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maeda and Ito with Shimmura to include wherein the device controller deletes the device list stored in the storage when the management device shifts from the second state to the first state, as taught by Shimmura, in paragraph [0008], to allow the first server to send a system switching notification to the second server in case of redundancy switching at which the first server is to shift from the operating state into a standby state. 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 MUHAMMAD RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-7734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.. 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571)272-7304. 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. /MUHAMMAD RAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 26, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 14, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 17, 2023
Response Filed
Jul 20, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 25, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 25, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 22, 2023
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 22, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 15, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 05, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 11, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603935
WORKFLOW COORDINATION IN COORDINATION NAMESPACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598147
COLLABORATIVE RELATIONAL MANAGEMENT OF NETWORK AND CLOUD-BASED RESOURCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592917
NETWORK LINK ESTABLISHMENT IN A MULTI-CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587451
AUTOMATING SECURED DEPLOYMENT OF CONTAINERIZED WORKLOADS ON EDGE DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580978
APPLICATION-CENTRIC WEB PROTOCOL-BASED DATA STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+70.8%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 274 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month