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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner’s response re: 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-13, filed 19 May 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Luca, Iida, Nellros, Araki, Karri, Karube.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “most positional information” in claims 1 and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most positional information” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Examiner will interpret “most positional information” as “position information” so as to advance prosecution.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karube et al., US 20220027829 A1 (herein, Karube) in view of Araki et al., US 20240034335 A1 (herein, Araki).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Karube discloses, a management apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
an information acquirer configured to acquire a plurality of pieces of positional information of a device to be managed over a predetermined period (FIG. 1 and ¶[0037] – “…in the heavy equipment 1 and the carriers 2-1 to 2-10) receive radio waves (position information) from a plurality of positioning satellites,…”), wherein the pieces of positional information represent locational positions the device had been located (¶[0037] – “…the portable terminal devices that have received the radio waves transmits the respective position information…”);
an acquired information storage configured to store the plurality of pieces of positional information (FIG. 1, # 6 – server device, and ¶[0037] – “…transmits the respective position information to the server device 6 via a base station of a communications company (possibly via the communication device 4), lines,…”);
an operation information manager configured to determine (FIGS. 1-2 and #7 – work terminal device), based on the plurality of pieces of positional information stored by the acquired information storage, a predetermined area (FIG. 17 and # 110 – “work area”) in which most positional information were obtained among a plurality of predetermined areas (FIG. 17 and #120 – “work area”) in the predetermined period as a device presence area in which the device to be managed has been present in the predetermined period (¶[0007] – “… work type information indicating whether the carrier is performing a predetermined work or moving; a process of calculating a required time for each work type information item of the carrier…”).
Karube discloses, an input and output interface configured to output a result (¶[0046] – “…an input device, an output device and the like) or a tablet is connected to the external network interface 6 e …”) comprising device presence area information relating to the device presence area, determined by the operation information manager (¶[0046] – “…The manager of the server device 6 can utilize the server device 6…”), wherein the predetermined period is an operation period of the device to be managed (¶[0046] – “…The manager can also cause the utilization status, the maintenance and inspection status…”), but does not disclose, wherein, based on the result comprising the device presence area information relating to the device presence area, information is communicated to the device to facilitate managing operation of the device or equipment associated with the device.
However, Araki teaches, wherein, based on the result comprising the device presence area information relating to the device presence area, information is communicated to the device to facilitate managing operation of the device or equipment associated with the device (¶0081] – “…wherein, based on the result comprising the device presence area information relating to the device presence area, information is communicated to the device to facilitate managing operation of the device or equipment associated with the device….”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Karube to include the device presence area and input/output interface and its corresponding result as taught by Akari. Doing so, provides greater capability by enhancing the apparatus by the illustration of the device presence area and the managing the accuracy of the management apparatus.
Claims 2-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karube, Araki, and in further view of Nellros et al., US 20200410861 A1 (herein, Nellros).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Karube discloses the operation information manager and positional information, but does not disclose,
wherein the operation information manager is configured to determine the device presence area in which the device to be managed has been present on the basis of positional information obtained outside the predetermined period when a predetermined number or more of pieces of positional information are not obtained in the predetermined period.
However, Nellros teaches, wherein the operation information manager is configured to determine the device presence area in which the device to be managed has been present on the basis of positional information obtained outside the predetermined period (¶[0060] – “…recorded at different points in time….”) when a predetermined number or more of pieces (FIG. 4A, #10) of positional information are not obtained in the predetermined period (¶[0060] – “…position of each individual vehicle is typically recorded periodically…” – i.e., being periodically recorded, thus not in the predetermined period).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by modified Karube to include the timing after an end per the predetermined period as taught by Nellros. Doing so, provides greater capability by enhancing the apparatus in managing the accuracy of the management apparatus.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Karube discloses the operation information manager and predetermined period but does not disclose, wherein the operation information manager is configured to determine the device presence area in which the device to be managed has been present on the basis of positional information obtained at a timing after an end of the predetermined period and closest to the end of the predetermined period.
However, Nellros further discloses, wherein the operation information manager is configured to determine determines the presence device area (FIG. 4b illustrates the area) in which the device to be managed has been present on the basis of positional information obtained at a timing after an end (¶[0061] – “…only stops where a vehicle has stopped for some time is relevant..” – i.e., the stop has a timing which is at the end) of the predetermined period and closest to the end of the predetermined period (¶[0061] – “…i.e. stayed for a pre-determined time…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by modified Karube to include the timing closest to the end per the predetermined period as taught by Nellros. Doing so, provides greater capability by enhancing the apparatus in managing the accuracy of the management apparatus.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Karube discloses the operation information manager and predetermined period but does not disclose, wherein the operation information manager is configured to determine the device presence area in which the device to be managed has been present on the basis of positional information obtained at a timing closest to the predetermined period.
However, Nellros teaches, wherein the operation information manager is configured to determine the device presence area in which the device to be managed has been present on the basis of positional information obtained at a timing closest to the predetermined period (FIG. 4b, ¶[0062] – “…one cluster 30 will represent vehicles stops 20 that are located close to each other…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by modified Karube to include the timing closest to the predetermined period as taught by Nellros. Doing so, provides greater capability by enhancing the apparatus in managing the accuracy of the management apparatus.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Karube further discloses, a management method (FIG. 14 and ¶[0024) – “…method…”) but does not disclose,
determining, based on the plurality of pieces of positional information stored, the device presences area on the basis of positional information obtained outside the predetermined period when each piece of the positional information corresponding to the plurality of predetermined areas were not obtained in the predetermined period.
However, Nellros teaches,
determining, based on the plurality of pieces of positional information stored, the device presences area (¶[0042] – “simple parking area” – for a device) on the basis of positional information obtained outside the predetermined period (FIG. 4a, ¶[0060] – “…each individual vehicle is typically recorded periodically…”) when each piece of the positional information corresponding to the plurality of predetermined areas were not obtained in the predetermined period (¶[0060] – “…position of each individual vehicle is typically recorded periodically…” – i.e., being periodically recorded, thus not in the predetermined period).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed by modified Karube to include the aforementioned limitations as taught by Nellros. Doing so, provides greater capability by enhancing the apparatus in managing the accuracy of the management method.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Karube teaches the positional information and predetermined time but does not disclose, Nellros further discloses, wherein the determining of the device presence area comprises determining the device presence area in which the device (12) to be managed has been present on the basis of positional information obtained at a timing after an end of the predetermined period and closest to the end of the predetermined period ([0061]).
However, Nellros teaches, wherein the determining of the device presence area comprises determining the device presence area (FIG. 4b) in which the device (12) to be managed has been present on the basis of positional information obtained at a timing (FIG. 4b, ¶[0061] – “…one stop is typically defined by time…”) after an end of the predetermined period (¶[0061] - “…stop…” – i.e., the stop has an end and predetermined time period to the stop) and closest to the end of the predetermined period ([0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed by modified Karube to include the aforementioned limitations as taught by Nellros. Doing so, provides greater capability by enhancing the apparatus in managing the accuracy of the management method due to the timing of the positional information.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Karube discloses the device presence are, positional information, and predetermined period but does not disclose, wherein the determining of the device presence area comprises determining the device presence area in which the device to be managed has been present on the basis of positional information obtained at a timing after an end of the predetermined period and closest to the end of the predetermined period.
However, Nellros further discloses, wherein the determining of the device presence area comprises determining the device presence area (FIG. 4b-c illustrates and area) in which the device to be managed has been present on the basis of positional information obtained at a timing after an end (¶[0061] – “…only stops where a vehicle has stopped for some time is relevant..” – i.e., the stop has a timing which is at the end) of the predetermined period and closest to the end of the predetermined period (¶[0061] – “…i.e. stayed for a pre-determined time…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed by modified Karube to include the aforementioned limitations as taught by Nellros. Doing so, provides greater capability by enhancing the apparatus in managing the accuracy of the management method due to the timing after the end of the positional information.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Karube further discloses, wherein the plurality of pieces of positional information includes a first positional information (FIG. 16 illustrates first position of 2-3) and a second positional information (Col. 3, lines 63-68 – “…a second house…”),
the first positional information is acquired at a first point (FIG. 16 illustrates firs point of 2-1) included in the predetermined area, and
the second positional information is acquired at a second point(FIG. 16 illustrates a second point 2-6) included in the predetermined area, the second point being different from the first point.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited but not utilized in the Office Action pertain to management apparatus and methods.
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 LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 MST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. 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.
/LUIS G DEL VALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights